1980s amp. Nothing special. Drivers are indeed exceptional. Tweeter is off the shelf tho.
.
Well the Kii has the best that Bruno could do with the budget as amplification. I don't think you can fault the electronics even if it does not fit your preferences. Certainly NOT subpar.
If I am being overly suspicious of DSP here is why.
I put together Wilmslow Prestige long time ago, when the kit came with ATC mid driver.
The drivers were fantastic but the whole design not so much, passive cross-over not good, and the ultimate result was not close to anything you would expect from such 3-way speakers, very underwhelming.
I also used DEQX HDP-4 on it but the results were not great, I realized that doing too much attenuation on otherwise great ATC mid to get it working with Volt bas driver selected by Wilmslow for that kit just killed transparency. If I had at least two such Volt bas drivers then it may have been better.
I came to the same conclusion when I tried to turn passive PMC IB2S into active speakers using DEQX. I had Bryston amplification for each driver, yet the active version never sounded as good as passive version, even when passive was driven by the same Bryston amps in front of the original passive cross-over and the same DAC in DEQX. The DSP processing in DEQX that was in theory supposed to make well behaved dispersion and phase just killed the transparency. So same DAC, same amplification, when used in passive iteration was great, when used in DSP iteration was veiled and digital sounding. The only variable was DSP.
It was not my lack of knowledge, I did all that was to be done, that could be done.
I am not convinced that DSP and DACs in Kii are any better than in DEQX, I will certainly hear Kii but I want to make sure that I do not get carried away by seemingly good sounding speakers that will turn out not to be as good as let’s say my passive IB2, let alone any better.
I put together Wilmslow Prestige long time ago, when the kit came with ATC mid driver.
The drivers were fantastic but the whole design not so much, passive cross-over not good, and the ultimate result was not close to anything you would expect from such 3-way speakers, very underwhelming.
I also used DEQX HDP-4 on it but the results were not great, I realized that doing too much attenuation on otherwise great ATC mid to get it working with Volt bas driver selected by Wilmslow for that kit just killed transparency. If I had at least two such Volt bas drivers then it may have been better.
I came to the same conclusion when I tried to turn passive PMC IB2S into active speakers using DEQX. I had Bryston amplification for each driver, yet the active version never sounded as good as passive version, even when passive was driven by the same Bryston amps in front of the original passive cross-over and the same DAC in DEQX. The DSP processing in DEQX that was in theory supposed to make well behaved dispersion and phase just killed the transparency. So same DAC, same amplification, when used in passive iteration was great, when used in DSP iteration was veiled and digital sounding. The only variable was DSP.
It was not my lack of knowledge, I did all that was to be done, that could be done.
I am not convinced that DSP and DACs in Kii are any better than in DEQX, I will certainly hear Kii but I want to make sure that I do not get carried away by seemingly good sounding speakers that will turn out not to be as good as let’s say my passive IB2, let alone any better.
Tried the DEQX too... not a fan. To complicated and the FIR is not something I've heard as an effective ingredient anyway.
First of all... how did you measure, to get the best out of the filter? If you tri.amped - did you then have make a dedicated measurement of each driver, evaluate everything and EQ exactly where it was needed?
The DSP in the DEQX is exactly the same as in the cheapest Behringer... took a picture through the casing.... different software maybe, but same chip.
Well... dispersion is mostly ruled by the front baffle and the chosen drivers - of course the x-over pint too. But you cant control dispersion by DSP.
I used mike, one of DEQX recommended ones that had its file included, to do all the measurements.
In case of PMC I used the same cross-over points and slopes PMC used in the active version of IB2 with the exact same drivers, so I replicated what they did with DEQX, yet it was not as good as passive IB2 nor as active IB2 with PMC own digital cross-over which I had for a few months.
The Wilmslow kit is known to have problems with its crossover.
That makes no sense unless you were using analog outputs and had your gain staging all wrong. There are a lot of knobs to twiddle on a digital crossover so I accept getting the right acoustic slopes can be fraught.
The Kii is built as a system so everything was designed to work together. The D&D 8C is also worth considering. Similar but different approach. Don't let past experience put you off. Its a bit like saying you drove a Citroen once so are put off German cars
.Its a bit like saying you drove a Citroen once so are put off German cars
Citroen is French car
I have driven one.
Formerly yes the tweeter was Seas; since some years ATC make their own tweeter (no ferrofluid and double suspension when I remember correctly).
IMO and E well designed passively filtered loudspeakers sound as good as actively filtered loudspeakers (analog or DSP).
It seems easier to work with DSP, but when your knowledge on loudspeakers is limited you easily fall into an endless number of traps.
With a Hypex Fusion plate amp and a couple of speakers you merely have the tools to construct a loudspeaker; making it into a good sounding speaker depends on other factors.
I agree with you to a point, and if I could afford a pair of ATC actives it would be job done for me on speakers and amps. But when you start to get into pattern control the way B&O, D&D and Kii have you cannot do it the old way. This may not matter to you, but it does to enough people to warrant the development of these products and I think more will follow.
For the DIY'r it is far easier to make a dogs dinner than a great speaker. That has always been true
For the DIY'r it is far easier to make a dogs dinner than a great speaker. That has always been true
That's not what I said. And 3 seconds with Google (excluding advertising of course) will illustrate that DSP filters can do what is simply not possible with their analog counterparts. It really IS a no-brainer. Look for things like FIR and IIR filters.
Jan
Last edited:
That is only in practise.. In theory you can actually also make an analog FIR (as well as IIR) filter: Analog FIR Filter Integrated Circuit - IEEE Conference Publication . But obviously it doesn't really make a lot of sense commercially (unless you might be one of those extreme high end audio companies that sell the kind of very odd-ball things their honored clientele is after).
The avantage of FIR is that phase response and amplitude response can be made independant of each other.
Common analog filters and IIR filters are of the minimum phase type and their amplitude- and phase- response are dependant from each other. The only exception is the allpass filter which has a flat amplitude response and a non-flat phase response.
The phase equaliser used by PSI uses a chain of 2nd order allpass filters that increase the group delay where the crossover's group-delay decreases.
There is no possibility to compute such an equaliser in a direct analytical way and and a program has to be used that uses a numerical approximation process (in layman's terms: an efficient trial and error process) for this task.
Then there is the intermediate solution: It is possible to achieve flat group delay with digital IIR filters as well by using the subtractive-delay method.
I have once visited the PSI factory and it was quite intreresting. I could see how the tweeters were assembled by hand. The electronics were also assembled by hand. I have seen the parts bins with the capacitors for the crossovers and phase equalisers. They order the capacitors in large quantities and then someone has to measure and distribute them into different bins.
I have once heard their largest three-way monitior and it is very good.
Even though well executed (!) digital is better that analog solutions - I find the latter much sexier.
Regards
Charles
Common analog filters and IIR filters are of the minimum phase type and their amplitude- and phase- response are dependant from each other. The only exception is the allpass filter which has a flat amplitude response and a non-flat phase response.
The phase equaliser used by PSI uses a chain of 2nd order allpass filters that increase the group delay where the crossover's group-delay decreases.
There is no possibility to compute such an equaliser in a direct analytical way and and a program has to be used that uses a numerical approximation process (in layman's terms: an efficient trial and error process) for this task.
Then there is the intermediate solution: It is possible to achieve flat group delay with digital IIR filters as well by using the subtractive-delay method.
I have once visited the PSI factory and it was quite intreresting. I could see how the tweeters were assembled by hand. The electronics were also assembled by hand. I have seen the parts bins with the capacitors for the crossovers and phase equalisers. They order the capacitors in large quantities and then someone has to measure and distribute them into different bins.
I have once heard their largest three-way monitior and it is very good.
Even though well executed (!) digital is better that analog solutions - I find the latter much sexier.
Regards
Charles
Charles, could you please share your impressions of large 3-way PSI monitor and how they compare to other active 3-way speakers from ATC, Kii, D&D, if you heard any of them?
Is it true that PSI Audio for some reason sounds "cloudy" in comparison (term used by someone who compared these studio monitors)?
I am wondering if all the analog circuitry used in PSI Audio indeed kills transparency?
Why would analog circuitry kill transparency, and, because you implicitly suggest, digital circuitry would not??
Please note that in the end the system is "analog"; for digital circuitry we need a/d conversion when the source is analog, and d/a conversion in all situations...
So actually there is more risk in "killing" transparency....
I am not suggesting at all that digital circuitry would not kill transparency, my experience with DSP was quite the opposite if you look at my previous posts.
Also I am not suggesting that analog circuitry would kill transparency, there is a number of well respected designers that claim so and there were some comments about "cloudy" sound produced by PSI Audio (employing analog cross-over) in comparison to let's say ATC with analog cross-over or Kii with digital. I am asking for opinions based on experience, sound engineering and skills. My impression, based on mine and experience of others, is that too much processing in either DSP or analog domain kills transparency, and for this reason PSI Audio (which I did not hear yet) sounds "cloudy" as stated by others, Kii Three sounds digital, washed out, for the lack of better words, while ATC sounds more transparent. I am trying to figure out why, is it because ATC has superb drivers and does not have to do too much in their active analog cross-overs, nor they want to in order to achieve better phase behavior as PSI does? And is it because Kii does so much processing in DSP to achieve unquestionably well measured speakers that transparency suffers, according to some?
You really should not worry so much about subjective opinons you read. You'll start believing things like 'silver cable sounds bright'. At the end of the day your room, your music, your ears and your wallet.
Please reference where people say the kii3 sounds 'washed out'. I have seen nothing but praise for them (including Jan, who nearly bought a pair). When sound on sound (who have no audiphool credentials* to worry about ) say "Few monitors have impressed us as much as Kii's cardioid-radiating Three speakers." does that sound like they thought it was 'washed out'?
*They may suffer from advertisers though
Please reference where people say the kii3 sounds 'washed out'. I have seen nothing but praise for them (including Jan, who nearly bought a pair). When sound on sound (who have no audiphool credentials* to worry about ) say "Few monitors have impressed us as much as Kii's cardioid-radiating Three speakers." does that sound like they thought it was 'washed out'?
*They may suffer from advertisers though
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.