Ive been playing with one for 3 weeks. It will find a home in my sons living room and play well with his first edition CSX 15. I wrote about that sub 3 years ago, so I was curious as to what changed, what improvedor didnt.
Or Didnt: My room. I hadnt run a test tone in 3 years. I hadnt moved my Ultra 13. I changed fronts, then changed back and about a year ago I replaced my old HK, used as a pre/pro for an Onk 1007. When I plugged the Onk in, I just ran Audyssey Multi EQ XT, never measured, never looked back. This was a mistake. When the Cadence arrived, I tried a placement, calibrated and ran Aud again. Since I have 2 LFE outs, I included both the CSX 15 II and the Ultra 13. What I found was disturbing when I ran tones for each sub. I didnt expect much from the first run with the Cadence, but there was nothing similar to previous Ultra runs Id taken in 2007. I formerly had a fairly flat response with a couple of +/5 points down to 16hz with the Ultra. Now, what I see is a rolloff at 25hz. I wasnt happy with either sub, so Ive been running tones with slightly different setting and placement options ever since to get an improvement. It turns out my best responses have been without Audyssey engaged. I havent given up on it yet, but thats what Ill show you.
What Changed (and Improved):
Packaging: I wasnt happy with the packaging for the first rev and noted it to Cadence. They immediately started double boxing. There is no issue with the Mark II. The new packaging is bullet proof and it needs to be. Double boxed with form fitting styro inserts, top and bottom and all four corners. The sub is protected by a cloth bag with a plastic wrap interior. Its a large and heavy box coming in around 100lbs. This packaging is as good and professional looking as Ive seen.
The Amp: 300w RMS/600w dynamic, first watts are pure class A, then class A/B. You can read the marketing verbiage on their site, but there are a couple of changes. It no longer has dual inputs, now sports variable phase, dual voltage (which must be set correctly) and a Master/Slave Ethernet connection which allows multiple sub solutions with no signal loss and with the Master settings (if applicable) managing the array. There is still a Bass Boost equalizer feature which allows you to adjust output at 50hz 0-+12dbs (more on this later). The plate amp will get warm to the touch, but never hot.
Note: One of the complaints, per Cadence, about the original was that the amp was too powerful for the driver. Meaning the driver would achieve Xmax and distort before the amp ran out of gas. It was a lesser platform 225/500w. In the limited time I played with that sub, I never had that problem. However, the Mark II addresses Cadences own criticism of their product. Which brings us to the driver
The Driver:
I called and askedhere are the cliffnotesbetter materials, larger voicecoil, heavier magnet, higher power handling capability, greater xmax. There is some good information listed on their site. I cant recall the description of the original driver. Also, the screen is tricky to remove and Im not going to risk blemishing a sub intended for someone else, so no pics from me. The screen, like its predecessor is built into the baffle. My ears and my SPL meter tell me that definite improvements were made.
Weight: Net weight on this unit is 88lbs. I believe the last rev came in at 78lbs. Most of that weight is the driver.
What Didnt Change (much):
The cabinet is still very nice looking with the piano black front baffle. The box is approx 20 X 18 X 23 tall with spikes, ¾ braced MDF. I think they rounded the edges a tad more, but in general, the only way you can tell the difference between the CSX 15 and Mark II is by looking at the amp.
Performance:
I found the first rev of the CSX 15 had a good blend of power and musicality. It was a tad slow and there was overhang, but at its price point and versus brick and mortar subs, it could take most to lunch in performance and especially value. The Mark II really steps up in output, articulation and musicality. It pounds. There is no slowness or softness to sharp attacks. There is little perceived overhang except in one area (below). The midbass pressure is very apparent. The advertised FR is 25-250hz. As with most specs, that depends. I believe the box is tuned in the low 30hz range, since rollof at the LP usually starts there. Right now, its stacked on my Ultra and Im down 6db at 25hz, -3db at 28hz. This is pretty typical for a corner loaded location with this sub. There seems to also be a natural peak at 70hz. In a couple of locations, this created room responses that were not good. The peak was audibly prominent if whatever media had high content in that area. At high volumes the sub sounded out of control and probably was. In a better location, while the peak was still there, it was much better behaved and sounded in control and articulate throughout the performance. Ive attached a nearfield graph and one of the better FR at the LP (over 3M). Dont get excited or disturbed by either. Nearfield shows the natural bump at 70hz, but is much too flat down low for real world performance. The LP graph doesnt tell you how good the sub sounds. Like its predecessor, this sub isnt designed to troll the depths, but it does a decent job down low and has astounding midbass punch and articulation.
Bass Boost: I experimented with it at +6, +3 and +1. In that location, it provided increased output from 63 to 31.5hz and a db or 2 below. However, in that location, it exacerbated the peak at 70 I described above and I set it back to 0. I havent tried it in the subs current position. Im happy with the FR.
Ive been listening to this sub in comparison to a PB13 Ultra, as well as, playing them as duals for 3 weeks. It doesnt give anything away to the Ultra in midbass when played within its limitsand those limits I havent reached. At reference level at my LP during LFE heavy Tron Legacy, the needle was averaging 108dbs with peaks as high as 112dbs. I got similar readings during WOTW. Considering the original CSX 15 peaked out at 108dbs on that one, this is quite an output improvement. When running as duals with the Ultra, I found a good blenda little thick in the midbass, but brutal punch that put a smile on my face. To run these right together, Id have to resort to REW and a BFDIm not trusting Audyssey right now.
Conclusion: Not many write about or ask about Cadence (except for me). Its a shame since this company offers well designed, well built productsandare committed to improving product, value and Customer Service. At $500, this sub cant be described as entry level and its not an entry level product. The Mark II is a considerable improvement over the CSX 15 and its still shipped free.
Or Didnt: My room. I hadnt run a test tone in 3 years. I hadnt moved my Ultra 13. I changed fronts, then changed back and about a year ago I replaced my old HK, used as a pre/pro for an Onk 1007. When I plugged the Onk in, I just ran Audyssey Multi EQ XT, never measured, never looked back. This was a mistake. When the Cadence arrived, I tried a placement, calibrated and ran Aud again. Since I have 2 LFE outs, I included both the CSX 15 II and the Ultra 13. What I found was disturbing when I ran tones for each sub. I didnt expect much from the first run with the Cadence, but there was nothing similar to previous Ultra runs Id taken in 2007. I formerly had a fairly flat response with a couple of +/5 points down to 16hz with the Ultra. Now, what I see is a rolloff at 25hz. I wasnt happy with either sub, so Ive been running tones with slightly different setting and placement options ever since to get an improvement. It turns out my best responses have been without Audyssey engaged. I havent given up on it yet, but thats what Ill show you.
What Changed (and Improved):
Packaging: I wasnt happy with the packaging for the first rev and noted it to Cadence. They immediately started double boxing. There is no issue with the Mark II. The new packaging is bullet proof and it needs to be. Double boxed with form fitting styro inserts, top and bottom and all four corners. The sub is protected by a cloth bag with a plastic wrap interior. Its a large and heavy box coming in around 100lbs. This packaging is as good and professional looking as Ive seen.
The Amp: 300w RMS/600w dynamic, first watts are pure class A, then class A/B. You can read the marketing verbiage on their site, but there are a couple of changes. It no longer has dual inputs, now sports variable phase, dual voltage (which must be set correctly) and a Master/Slave Ethernet connection which allows multiple sub solutions with no signal loss and with the Master settings (if applicable) managing the array. There is still a Bass Boost equalizer feature which allows you to adjust output at 50hz 0-+12dbs (more on this later). The plate amp will get warm to the touch, but never hot.
Note: One of the complaints, per Cadence, about the original was that the amp was too powerful for the driver. Meaning the driver would achieve Xmax and distort before the amp ran out of gas. It was a lesser platform 225/500w. In the limited time I played with that sub, I never had that problem. However, the Mark II addresses Cadences own criticism of their product. Which brings us to the driver
The Driver:
I called and askedhere are the cliffnotesbetter materials, larger voicecoil, heavier magnet, higher power handling capability, greater xmax. There is some good information listed on their site. I cant recall the description of the original driver. Also, the screen is tricky to remove and Im not going to risk blemishing a sub intended for someone else, so no pics from me. The screen, like its predecessor is built into the baffle. My ears and my SPL meter tell me that definite improvements were made.
Weight: Net weight on this unit is 88lbs. I believe the last rev came in at 78lbs. Most of that weight is the driver.
What Didnt Change (much):
The cabinet is still very nice looking with the piano black front baffle. The box is approx 20 X 18 X 23 tall with spikes, ¾ braced MDF. I think they rounded the edges a tad more, but in general, the only way you can tell the difference between the CSX 15 and Mark II is by looking at the amp.
Performance:
I found the first rev of the CSX 15 had a good blend of power and musicality. It was a tad slow and there was overhang, but at its price point and versus brick and mortar subs, it could take most to lunch in performance and especially value. The Mark II really steps up in output, articulation and musicality. It pounds. There is no slowness or softness to sharp attacks. There is little perceived overhang except in one area (below). The midbass pressure is very apparent. The advertised FR is 25-250hz. As with most specs, that depends. I believe the box is tuned in the low 30hz range, since rollof at the LP usually starts there. Right now, its stacked on my Ultra and Im down 6db at 25hz, -3db at 28hz. This is pretty typical for a corner loaded location with this sub. There seems to also be a natural peak at 70hz. In a couple of locations, this created room responses that were not good. The peak was audibly prominent if whatever media had high content in that area. At high volumes the sub sounded out of control and probably was. In a better location, while the peak was still there, it was much better behaved and sounded in control and articulate throughout the performance. Ive attached a nearfield graph and one of the better FR at the LP (over 3M). Dont get excited or disturbed by either. Nearfield shows the natural bump at 70hz, but is much too flat down low for real world performance. The LP graph doesnt tell you how good the sub sounds. Like its predecessor, this sub isnt designed to troll the depths, but it does a decent job down low and has astounding midbass punch and articulation.
Bass Boost: I experimented with it at +6, +3 and +1. In that location, it provided increased output from 63 to 31.5hz and a db or 2 below. However, in that location, it exacerbated the peak at 70 I described above and I set it back to 0. I havent tried it in the subs current position. Im happy with the FR.
Ive been listening to this sub in comparison to a PB13 Ultra, as well as, playing them as duals for 3 weeks. It doesnt give anything away to the Ultra in midbass when played within its limitsand those limits I havent reached. At reference level at my LP during LFE heavy Tron Legacy, the needle was averaging 108dbs with peaks as high as 112dbs. I got similar readings during WOTW. Considering the original CSX 15 peaked out at 108dbs on that one, this is quite an output improvement. When running as duals with the Ultra, I found a good blenda little thick in the midbass, but brutal punch that put a smile on my face. To run these right together, Id have to resort to REW and a BFDIm not trusting Audyssey right now.
Conclusion: Not many write about or ask about Cadence (except for me). Its a shame since this company offers well designed, well built productsandare committed to improving product, value and Customer Service. At $500, this sub cant be described as entry level and its not an entry level product. The Mark II is a considerable improvement over the CSX 15 and its still shipped free.
Nearfield.pdf 23.6376953125k . file
CSX 15II LP 3M.pdf 24.9658203125k . file
The screen isn't blue...
