advertisement


Another Kii THREE thread.

I can't understand what is good about these measurements, Keith. They look just as peaky and troughy as any I've ever taken in my room. The 200 Khz trough looks as treacherous as that gully people keep falling off along Sharp Edge, Blencathra. If you were to move that to the presence region it might help redress what I imagine (from the graphs) will be a relentless studio sound. (If, that is, I held the absurd notion that a FR graph can tell you everything about a speaker's sound.) Also, perhaps you can clarify how you do these measurements? When John Atkinson does near-field measuring, he always says that a relatively flat looking 40-100Hz region is in fact the sign of an 'overdamped' sound, since the near-field measuring technique inevitably produces a bass hump.
 
I'm not attacking Keith's competence, and I don't want to be combative. I'm just posing the question of what really constitute 'good measurements'. One person might find a flat presence region to be an excellent goal to aspire to; another might find it to be more appropriate for studio analysis than home listening. Similarly with the bass. Is flat desirable? Most prefer a mild hump, but for some there's nothing worse than a small speaker insistently pushing the mid-bass to disguise the lack of lower bass. That would be my first and more general question. But I am also puzzled as to why Keith feels his measurements are good according to his own criteria; i.e. flatness; since, as I said, they look pretty peaky and troughy from the screen grabs provided.

The problem with these discussions is that a) we need to be able to see the graphs to discuss them and, as has been pointed out numerous times, we can't see the real figures from a screen grab. And b) they never are real discussions; they always seem to be marred by absolute claims one way or the other, so everyone gets wound up and defensive.
 
I very much adhere to Toole/Olive’s definition of a good loudspeaker, which is a flat on-axis response and a flat and even off-axis response which mirrors the on-axis.
I was trying to compare in my room well regarded traditional actives and contemporary active designs which create a cardioid response, the second blue/red plot .
https://www.puriteaudio.co.uk/singl...ome-further-thoughts-and-initial-measurements
Personally I prefer as linear a system as possible, I enjoy a flat response of course any anechoic measurement will be altered drastically once placed in a room.
The narrow 200Hz dip is almost certainly comb filtering, probably because I didn’t have the microphone exactly eqi-distant between the speakers, it doesn’t appear on my other measurements of the Kiis/8Cs.
Keith
 
Elephantears said:
I'm not attacking Keith's competence, and I don't want to be combative. I'm just posing the question of what really constitute 'good measurements'. One person might find a flat presence region to be an excellent goal to aspire to; another might find it to be more appropriate for studio analysis than home listening. Similarly with the bass. Is flat desirable? Most prefer a mild hump, but for some there's nothing worse than a small speaker insistently pushing the mid-bass to disguise the lack of lower bass. That would be my first and more general question. But I am also puzzled as to why Keith feels his measurements are good according to his own criteria; i.e. flatness; since, as I said, they look pretty peaky and troughy from the screen grabs provided.

The problem with these discussions is that a) we need to be able to see the graphs to discuss them and, as has been pointed out numerous times, we can't see the real figures from a screen grab. And b) they never are real discussions; they always seem to be marred by absolute claims one way or the other, so everyone gets wound up and defensive.
Click to expand...

A flat response is technically the correct response. As to whether or not a flat response is desirable, that comes down to the listener's personal taste. Products like the Kii Three and the Dutch & Dutch 8c allow you to tune the response, within certain limits, to suit your own personal taste.
 
Purité Audio said:
The narrow 200Hz dip is almost certainly comb filtering, probably because I didn’t have the microphone exactly eqi-distant between the speakers, it doesn’t appear on my other measurements of the Kiis/8Cs.
Keith
Click to expand...

Keith, May I suggest that you get the microphone placement perfect, do some measurements that you feel you can really stand by, then publish them on your own thread, but link images rather than screen grabs, so that we can properly read the parameters. It would also be worth making the argument as to why you think the measurements for your speakers are good, since it can't be taken as gospel that 'flat is good'.

It would also be useful to give some guidelines for others on how to do measurements in a domestic environment. Then when you come out with the mantra about acoustically measuring your room you can back it up with a link to your thread. That way, you will be creating a resource on pfm, even if this is simply links to the REW instruction manual, or other threads on gearslutz et al.
 
Perhaps it might be worth you reading Toole’s book ‘Sound Reproduction’ then you will understand the rationale backed by thousands of hours of research why ‘flat is good’. Ulimately you have to enjoy your listening so you can choose a loudspeaker with a anechoic frequency response like the Himalayas and then add further distortion with a valve amp, that is your prerogative .
Personally I just want to hear the file as the artist intended.
Speakers such as the Kiis and Dutch&Dutch 8C emulate traditional soffit mounting , where a speaker is mounted completely flush into a wall massy enough to absorb the rear projected radiation and the flush mounting persuades the off axis sound to curve along the walls.
British Grove have some soffit mounted ATCs and they sound superb, the 8Cs create the same clarity without burying your speakers in the wall.
Keith
 
Most people get rid of the peaks and troughs by using smoothing. All rooms will show significant peaks and troughs due to nodes and antinodes at specific frequencies, comb filtering etc.. I agree that many people might not actually prefer a flat frequency output - I remember seeing some technical papers on that topic.
 
Elephantears said:
Keith, May I suggest that you get the microphone placement perfect, do some measurements that you feel you can really stand by, then publish them on your own thread, but link images rather than screen grabs, so that we can properly read the parameters. It would also be worth making the argument as to why you think the measurements for your speakers are good, since it can't be taken as gospel that 'flat is good'.

It would also be useful to give some guidelines for others on how to do measurements in a domestic environment. Then when you come out with the mantra about acoustically measuring your room you can back it up with a link to your thread. That way, you will be creating a resource on pfm, even if this is simply links to the REW instruction manual, or other threads on gearslutz et al.
Click to expand...

And invite the manufacturers to respond. I can’t imagine either Kii or D&D being happy with one of their dealers claiming their speakers are identical on the basis of a few amateurish measurements. It might just be that there is more to measuring a speaker usefully than connecting a cheap microphone to free software and waving it about.

BTW Keith has not understood how the D&Ds are intended to work. They are designed to be placed close to a wall and to couple to the wall. The rear drivers are like a boundary coupled sub-woofer. The rear drivers on the Kii, in contrast, produce a phase delayed signal to cancel out some of the rearward radiation from the other drivers.
 
Andy I have never claimed the speakers are identical, just that both measure similarly , which is what you would expect from two loudspeakers which anechoically measure superbly, and both create a cardioid response, I include the ‘traditional’ loudspeakers response as a comparator.
I understand perfectly how both speakers work, the 8C is similar in concept to a cardioid microphone but in reverse.
The fact is that both measure and more importantly sound better than traditional loudspeakers and that is immediately apparent when you compare them side by side.
Both these speakers allow you to enjoy a completely full range sound from a relatively compact enclosure and their sophisticated boundary filters allow them to be placed anywhere and adjusted, the 8Cs even include EQ to ameliorate any room mode isssues should they arise.
Soon I hope to have the Geithain cardioid loudspeakers here which should be interesting.
Keith
 
The Geithain 903K are absolutely superb. The difference here is that you will need a decent preamp, so don't be telling us that all preamps are the same and using any old volume pot!
 
Well a preamp should just be a totally transparent amplifier stage, I realise that some like to ‘season’ to taste, again entirely your prerogative.
Keith
 
AndyU said:
Kii thought so highly of Keith’s competence that they dumped him as a dealer.
Click to expand...
No, they didn't like that he sold a directly competing product (Dutch & Dutch) and made public, direct comparisons/measurements between them. Why do you feel a need to insult Keith based on no knowledge of the situation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top