# Pioneer TS-C520PRS initial review



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

I installed these yesterday (Thursday) and they probably have a combined total of 1.5-2 hours of break-in on them right now, so consider this an initial review. I will post a follow-up review in 4-5 weeks once they have fully broken-in and I've had some time to live with them.

As a point of reference, my previous systems in this car have consisted of MB Quart Reference-series components (RCE-213s) running off of a JL Audio e4300, CDT EF-51s (standard depth, EF-5 paper-cone woofers, TW-24 tweeters, and SatNet 480 crossovers) running off of the JL amp, which was replaced by the current NEXT VRz400.2, and finally a frankenstein set using Vifa MG14 4-ohm woofers and the CDT tweeters and crossovers. Additionally, there are a few components sets that I have a reasonable amount of experience with, either in other people's cars or in auditions at dealers; these include MB Quart Premium and QSD components (PCE-216s and QSD-216s), Alpine Type-X (SPX-177s), and DLS MS-5s.

For the record, this review is of TS-C520PRS, the 5-1/4 inch component set. The car is an E36 BMW 325is, and the woofers are installed in the stock kickpanel locations. They are receiving approximately 80W/channel as measured with a DMM and 1 KHz sinusoidal test tone.

For the tweeter installation, I ended up using the surface-mount pods on a 45-deg angle mounted to the sail panels. They are aimed such the paths intersect on the centerline of the car roughly between the driver's and passenger's heads. When I first fired them up, the tweeter level was set 0 dB, which was far too high. I reset them at -3 dB, which improved the balance significantly.

Compared to the other components sets I have used, the output of the tweeter seems pretty hot; another 3 dB of crossover attenuation would be nice when using the tweeters on-axis, as I am. Off-axis, the output of the tweeters is tamed quite a bit. On the other hand, these have the hottest upper-octave response of any soft-dome that I have used. 4 dB of medium-Q attenuation at 12 KHz was required to tame them to my taste.

The woofers' midbass response is nothing short of phenomenal, especially considering their size. It is superior to that of the DLS magnesium woofers and any of the Quarts that I have heard (QSD included). My previous Vifa MGs had virtually no usable output below about 150 Hz, so... The CDT EFs had reasonable midbass output, but it was warm, muddy, and somewhat veiled. The PRS's, on the other hand, deliver great texture to electric bass lines and really snap with the kick drums. They sound very controlled and neutral, allowing the timbre of the particular instruments to assert itself.

Midrange output for the woofers is again excellent. The Vifa MGs are great midrange performers, and the PRS woofers simply up the ante with improvements in texture, resolution, and transparency. Compared to soft cones, I would describe these as clinical, accurate, and revealing, if a bit on the dry side. They need no equalization to sound good, but they are relatively unforgiving of bad recordings.

The tweeter is a bit of a mixed-bag for me. First of all, this is first tweeter that I have owned that is crossed-over lower than 4 KHz, and having a significant portion of the midrange coming from the tweeter is a bit of new experience! Top end dispersion is very good, and they render bells, cymbals, and piano notes with good accuracy and detail. They don't have the air that the Seas neos do, and they don't have detail that the Quarts do, but they are not strident as those tweeters, either. Upper end performance is superior to either the CDT TW-24 tweeters (bright, but easily driven into a hissy, sibilant mess) or the DLS UP-1s (restrained, veiled and lacking upper-octave detail.)

I find the tweeter to be satisfactorily smooth in the midrange frequencies (although, admittedly, I don't have experience with lots of high-end tweeters), but on treble-heavy recordings (The Smiths, Echo and the Bunnymen, The Editors, and Interpol come to mind) the tweeter's midrange reproduction gets somewhat congested-sounding. I am not sure how to describe it other than that, and I suspect what I am hearing is distortion. On the other hand, the low crossover point elevates the stage and, when traveling at 65-70 mph on the highway, I find it not to be very noticable. The only other thing I'll stress about the tweeter is that it seems overly aggressive above 10 KHz or so, and I found a significant cut to be required to get the response where I wanted it.

Compared to the previous frankenstein set, I actually find this set to be slightly more efficient.

How does the whole thing sound overall? Imaging is very good and stage height is reasonably high (neck/chin level.) With the tweeters aimed as they are now, I get a coherent stage with good channel separation but very little noticable point-source location. Also, compared to my previous setup, the stage depth seems to have improved immensely. Listening to Echo and the Bunnymen's "The Cutter," I can clearly hear that Ian McCoulloch's vocal is mixed somewhat toward the back, with the lead guitar front and left. I would describe the tonality of the set as very detailed and very neutral, with no obvious bias in any frequency range.

So, I am happy with my purchase, at least for the moment! There is nothing I have heard that costs less than $500 that sounds better than these, and there is very little under $1000 that does.


----------



## ocuriel (Oct 7, 2005)

Nice review. Did you ike them better then the QSD's?


----------



## zfactor (Oct 19, 2005)

same question from me ^^^^


----------



## khail19 (Oct 27, 2006)

Great detailed review. It's nice to know the smaller set can still pound out the midbass.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

ocuriel said:


> Nice review. Did you ike them better then the QSD's?


Personally, yes. There is really nothing on any of the MB Quart set that is really outstanding, IMO, save for the upper-register detail on the tweeter. This comes at the expense of a somewhat harsh, strident tweeter that becomes painful to listen to either at high levels or for extended periods of time.

The PRS woofer is leaps and bounds above the Quart QSD woofer. Better midbass output, better midbass detail, better midrange resolution.

My overall impression of the Quart sets (and this goes for all of them) is that they sound pretty good at moderate levels. Crank 'em, and they fall apart.

I have listened to a handful of high-end sets: Boston Zs, Diamond D9s, Focal KPs, MB Quart QSDs and JL Audio ZRs rolleyes: ). I prefer the sound of the PRSs to any of them. Some of this is objective, some of it is preference, but it is where I fall.

I don't have a lot of experience with Dynaudio, but a friend of mine had a System 340 installed in his E36 M3 before it got totalled and I got to listen to it a few times. From memory, I would say thay the PRSs are very, very close.


----------



## tbreihan (Sep 30, 2005)

khail19 said:


> Great detailed review. It's nice to know the smaller set can still pound out the midbass.


The midbass is very, very good. Best I've had in this car, with its sub-optimal front woofer size and location. My brother-in-law has Quart PCE-216s (6-1/2 inch) in the front doors of his Camry, and I think these put out more/better midbass.


----------

