Just bumping this thread: Finally got around to reading Kal's review. Let me say it straight out: That's how subjective hifi reviews should be written, IMO! Clearly written, with much clarifying context on the design, and no audiophile woo (alright, except for the thing about differences between digital cables). The descriptions of the subjective listening experiences are so clear and precise that I can relate them to things I can hear myself. Well done.
Any news on when your Kii Three review might be up, Kal?
(concerning the stereophile measurements, btw: how come there's no distortion measurements? J. Atkinson must surely have the know-how to do them?)
On another note - this review, and Kal's clear preference for narrow mode, reinforced a view I've had for some time: That the ideal speaker types for home use actually may actually be opposite extremes when it comes to dispersion characteristics. I think speakers with narrow directivity, like the Beolab 90, electrostats, dipoles and big horns, often will work very well. Old vintage box speakers with wide baffles probably worked better than the tiny modern boxes, partly because the wider baffles sent more of the sound directly forward. But I also think that omnidirectional speakers, the exact opposite in fact, may work very well also. Speakers with very narrow dispersion avoid interacting with the room, so there are fewer reflections that are different from the direct sound. Omnis illuminate absolutely everything, on the other hand. BUT the reflections are very similar to the direct sound, so the stereo image will be less smeared and diffuse as a result.
This is how I've experienced it so far, at least. The speakers I've like the most have either had narrow directivity (like dipoles, horns or the Beolab 90), or omnis (the MBL 101, German Physiks).
Thought of that when I saw this in a recent speaker review (not the Beolabs):
