Do We Want All Speakers To Sound The Same ?

[goat76]

What is the effect of e.g. heavy toe-in when reflections increase from the opposite wall in terms of distance perception of a phantom source /in stereo/? Does it add to confuse our brains with respect to distance to speakers? Would be great with some papers that deal with stereo (and not only single sound sources).
-Level; weaker levels are perceived more distant.

I don't think toe-in will have a significant effect on the perceived distance to the phantom sources in the mix.

The perceived distances of the recorded sound objects will be set by both the physical distance to the speakers and the distance the microphones were placed from the sound objects in the recording. The direct sound (first perceived sound) will be the same no matter how you toe-in your speakers, because the physical distance will still be the same. And the microphones can be “seen” as if they were placed somewhere between the speakers, and how far away they where placed from the sound objects will dictate how far behind the speakers the sound is perceived to come from.

Other things that can change the perceived distance to the recorded objects are a forward or laid-back sound, which is dependent on frequency response in the presence range, or reverb in the recordings. But the perceived sound from those things will probably not be drastically changed by the toe-in of the speakers.

That’s my take on that, maybe someone else see it differently.

 

[Thomas_A]

I don't think toe-in will have a significant effect on the perceived distance to the phantom sources in the mix.

The perceived distances of the recorded sound objects will be set by both the physical distance to the speakers and the distance the microphones were placed from the sound objects in the recording. The direct sound (first perceived sound) will be the same no matter how you toe-in your speakers, because the physical distance will still be the same. And the microphones can be “seen” as if they were placed somewhere between the speakers, and how far away they where placed from the sound objects will dictate how far behind the speakers the sound is perceived to come from.

Other things that can change the perceived distance to the recorded objects are a forward or laid-back sound, which is dependent on frequency response in the presence range, or reverb in the recordings. But the perceived sound from those things will probably not be drastically changed by the toe-in of the speakers.

That’s my take on that, maybe someone else see it differently.

As in the reference I linked to, DRR, frequency cues, and level are deteminants of distance (some absolute and some only relative). The recording is a separate issue, here I only refer to the distance perception to the loudspeakers. Supressing the distance cues to fool the brain will enhance cues in the recording. I have listened to speakers that reveal themselves ”very well”, while other speaker systems totally disappear, leaving you alone with the cues in the recording. Reflections from other directions is a key, as known from surround systems.

 

[MattHooper]

One of the motivations for making this thread was actually a thread I considered making, but decided not to.

I'd had a few days of particularly wonderful listening experiences on my system, was just so happy with it, and wanted to talk about this stuff with the folks here.
So a thread like "What Do You Love About Your Sound System?" kind of thing. Just wanted to commune.

But when I thought it through I felt it would likely sort of land like a bag of hammers. And I do not know this is true since I didn't make the thread, but my hunch was based on:

1. While there are quite a lot of discussions on other audio forums where people share their extended impressions of their gear (or gear they've heard), that doesn't seem to be much of a "thing" on ASR. I mean, I guess it does happen in a different way, like some sharing measurements they've made of their system. But for the most part there is a general allergy toward discussing sound in any extended fashion, particularly putting sound in to language.

2. My impression was that since a majority on ASR seek neutrality and certain measured goals, a lot of the replies as to "what do you like about your system" would be of the form *shrug* "it sounds neutral" or variations of "I'm not looking for a system that sounds like anything...I want to just hear through it to the music, which is what I'm doing."

I figured if my impressions were right (and why I didn't bother with that thread) then the ideal most here would be that speakers are "not heard" in terms of any character, and the winnowing down "good" speakers based on aiming at certain measurements inherently implied a convergence. From which follows many would be essentially happy with the eventual commodification of speakers, hitting some norm of basic neutrality and accuracy so all the wild variations currently available need no longer apply.

But I wanted to check if my hunch was on the mark or not. I think generally speaking it seemed to be correct. Even when some suggested such convergence would or could never happen, the ideal still seemed to be attractive. And of course, the views were nuanced.

As I've said, this thread isn't about judging this attitude to be "wrong," at least not from me. Even though the essential commodification or narrow convergence of speaker design isn't something that thrills me personally, I understand why others like the idea. This thread was more about getting a lay-of-the land, and I appreciate the replies.

 

[MattHooper]

I was in a large music store today to pick something up. They sell musical instruments of all kinds/studio/PA equipment etc. I was walking by the large opening to the drum section. There was the sound of someone practicing drums. But it wasn't. By that I mean it was clearly someone practicing or trying out drums. It had some of the "jerky" dynamics of someone really playing drums vs a recording. And it had all the traditional drum sounds - high hat, cymbals, toms, snare, kick etc. And yet even without seeing what was going on it was immediately recognizable as not being a real drum kit. It lacked the airy presence 'being played in the room' clarity, lacked the acoustic power and especially rich timbral detail of real drums.

Of course it turned out to be someone playing one of those ubiquitous electronic drum sets: the ones with all the pads and kick set up like a real set of drums, but which trigger really high quality drum samples, and it was all coming out small PA-type monitors.

I don't know about others, but this is how I routinely experience the difference between real instruments and reproduced. The drums sounded stripped of complexity, timbrally more "black and white" and monotonous. As in most cases, the process of recording and then shoving the sound out again through your average set of drivers, the instrument sounded like it had been squeezed through a toothpaste tube, leaving so much of the richness of the real thing "left in the tube."

This is why, whenever I encounter anything that *does* strike me as "more like the real thing" from a hi-fi system, it gets my attention. It's that rare.

 

[changer]

I really appreciate your inquisition.

Having been thinking about this, however, it appeared to my mind that you would probably prefer a higly complex form of music reproduction: each instrument would be played on a dedicated speaker, as none could at the same time play the smooth strings and the textured, riven air pressure of the drums, the cymbals would not sound like the horn etcetera etcetera. This would be an interesting arrangement of speakers, and quite a task to combine the amount of sources into one sound field. A big room should form the basis for this orchestra of different speaker races. If you plan to build this, I would really like to listen to it.

 

[MattHooper]

I really appreciate your inquisition.

Having been thinking about this, however, it appeared to my mind that you would probably prefer a higly complex form of music reproduction: each instrument would be played on a dedicated speaker, as none could at the same time play the smooth strings and the textured, riven air pressure of the drums, the cymbals would not sound like the horn etcetera etcetera. This would be an interesting arrangement of speakers, and quite a task to combine the amount of sources into one sound field. A big room should form the basis for this orchestra of different speaker races. If you plan to build this, I would really like to listen to it.

A very perceptive comment!

As it happens I've actually discussed that before in other threads: I get a very pleasant effect from my home theater speakers along just the lines you mention above. I use Hales Transcendence T1 monitors for L/R and their huge Transcendence center channel as well. I adore the sound. There is a very close timbral similarity among the L/C/R speakers but it's not perfect, no doubt due to the different designs, size difference, location differences (e.g. center closer to the floor).
Engaging various room EQ modes can make them sound more coherent together. But there is a way in which the not-quite-perfect match becomes a "feature" instead of a "bug," in just the way you suggest. I notice that even just upscaling stereo to the L/C/R that I get a more timbrally complex sound than if I just use the L/R in stereo (or even my dedicated Thiel stereo speakers). So voices, sax, parts of a drum, keyboards, they sound less homogenized, more "produced by actually different instruments" rather than squeezed out of two stereo speakers. I infer this is due to the slight timbral mismatch of the center vs the L/R speakers, so that instruments that occur between the L/R stereo panning really are given a slightly different timbral "spin," adding to the complexity of the sound.
I really love the effect, which is one reason I often don't have the room EQ engaged.

Also, at an audio show, last year I think, there was a much discussed room where the speaker designer had done just what you suggest. It was a complex combination of different speakers and drivers, almost a wall of sound, meant to produce a more complex sound. The proprietor had designed it with an aim to reproducing a more convincing sound for classical music. A number of reports said it really worked! I can't remember the name of the company.

 

[audiofooled]

I was in a large music store today to pick something up. They sell musical instruments of all kinds/studio/PA equipment etc. I was walking by the large opening to the drum section. There was the sound of someone practicing drums. But it wasn't. By that I mean it was clearly someone practicing or trying out drums. It had some of the "jerky" dynamics of someone really playing drums vs a recording. And it had all the traditional drum sounds - high hat, cymbals, toms, snare, kick etc. And yet even without seeing what was going on it was immediately recognizable as not being a real drum kit. It lacked the airy presence 'being played in the room' clarity, lacked the acoustic power and especially rich timbral detail of real drums.

Of course it turned out to be someone playing one of those ubiquitous electronic drum sets: the ones with all the pads and kick set up like a real set of drums, but which trigger really high quality drum samples, and it was all coming out small PA-type monitors.

I don't know about others, but this is how I routinely experience the difference between real instruments and reproduced. The drums sounded stripped of complexity, timbrally more "black and white" and monotonous. As in most cases, the process of recording and then shoving the sound out again through your average set of drivers, the instrument sounded like it had been squeezed through a toothpaste tube, leaving so much of the richness of the real thing "left in the tube."

This is why, whenever I encounter anything that *does* strike me as "more like the real thing" from a hi-fi system, it gets my attention. It's that rare.

Here's an example of couple of drum kits played rather vigorously, at 11:38 an electronic one, and at 21:21, a real, transparent one (pun intended):

The difference is obvious, but that's not my point. The thing is, on a neutral system you can enjoy timbral richness, or the lack thereof, of either one of them, but what you will lack is the real life dynamics and SPL. When it comes to kick drum you may come close on a capable system, but snare and rim shots are almost ear bleeding and next to impossible to reproduce. To me, subjectively, a quiet drum kit is no drum kit at all...

 

[kemmler3D]

@MattHooper I think you're spot on that around here, everyone mostly agrees on what the ideal speaker is (or at least there are a small handful of groupings around certain ideals). And so if the perfect speaker could be manufactured, we'd all buy that one if we could afford it. There would still be a perfect nearfield monitor, a perfect mid/far-field speaker, and a perfect OB / dipole speaker, though. Maybe some others.

As for being able to notice the difference between live and recorded sound ... I know what you mean. You can tell whether the jazz trio coming from down the street is real or on a PA pretty much immediately. But consider the fact that it's extremely rare to randomly come across a true hifi system playing well-recorded music unexpectedly, where you might actually be fooled and think it was a real band. I mean, it's never happened to me, where I randomly encountered a situation where there would be an actual tricky guess to make, "live or recorded".

Even so, I think the fact that live and recorded are easy to tell apart comes down to microphones as much as it does speakers. Mics will always capture a different portion of the off-axis sound coming from an instrument than your ears will. And the dynamic range will tend to be lower, especially when it comes to percussion transients. So even with a perfect speaker that could radiate selectively in high-res 3D, the ultimate "pulsing sphere", you would still need to innovate in the world of recording and production, to create a good illusion.

 

[mj30250]

Here's an example of couple of drum kits played rather vigorously, at 11:38 an electronic one, and at 21:21, a real, transparent one (pun intended):

The difference is obvious, but that's not my point. The thing is, on a neutral system you can enjoy timbral richness, or the lack thereof, of either one of them, but what you will lack is the real life dynamics and SPL. When it comes to kick drum you may come close on a capable system, but snare and rim shots are almost ear bleeding and next to impossible to reproduce. To me, subjectively, a quiet drum kit is no drum kit at all...

With the possible exception of your final statement, I don't think anyone here would disagree. But, at what would point do we not only allow but encourage limitations in "real life SPL" within a loudspeaker system? As a hobbyist drummer (acoustic), I can unequivocally state that, without suitable hearing protection, there is virtually no pleasure to be had in pounding out a healthy rim shot or cymbal crash while behind or within close proximity to the kit. In sustained playing, such heavy hits would become absolutely torturous very quickly.

Similarly, for all of us home theater aficionados who dream of huge subwoofer arrays and go absolutely giddy when a big cannon-shot seems to pressurize the room, I imagine that were any of us to be placed next to a real cannon discharge with our ears wide open, we'd never want to repeat the experience again, never mind in the comfort of our home.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to capture and reproduce with a large degree of accuracy the tonal qualities of a given drum kit, the subtle textures of the heads, the various resonances / harmonics generated by the drum shells, the stick definition, wash, and wild cacophony of frequencies that can be unleashed by cymbal riding / crashing, etc. As I have a particular ear for these things relative to drums, I can instantly pick up on the extremely pleasant real-life, almost in-the-room accuracy of a pristine recording as opposed to one that doesn't quite get there. Yes, the raw, real-world SPL will be lacking, but, provided your system is capable of reaching your own personal volume limits while maintaining accurate tonality and keeping distortion under control, is that truly a negative?

 

[audiofooled]

Yes, the raw, real-world SPL will be lacking, but, provided your system is capable of reaching your own personal volume limits while maintaining accurate tonality and keeping distortion under control, is that truly a negative?

Exactly what I mean. If the performance is captured well, a neutral system should give what it takes to reproduce tonality with accuracy. I can't see how any coloration would be helpful in making it "more real" or anything like that.
But to me, again subjectively, it also needs to provide some sense of scale, a visceral feel, if you will. About a kind you would get from a safe distance in a live performance. In that sense, to me a kick drum is really enjoyable when resonating within chest cavity, it takes some SPL to do so and to me it certainly makes it more real. Not every system is capable of reproducing the attack. And you are right about the snare, I wasn't saying it's a bad thing in not being able to reproduce it with enough strength. If it were so, I guess it would painfully resonate inside the skull. But to me as a rule of thumb, it should at least get loud in order to maintain tonal balance... just saying. So, a pair of large subwoofers in a combination with just a couple of small bookshelves can't do it justice, can it?

 

[YSC]

Exactly what I mean. If the performance is captured well, a neutral system should give what it takes to reproduce tonality with accuracy. I can't see how any coloration would be helpful in making it "more real" or anything like that.
But to me, again subjectively, it also needs to provide some sense of scale, a visceral feel, if you will. About a kind you would get from a safe distance in a live performance. In that sense, to me a kick drum is really enjoyable when resonating within chest cavity, it takes some SPL to do so and to me it certainly makes it more real. Not every system is capable of reproducing the attack. And you are right about the snare, I wasn't saying it's a bad thing in not being able to reproduce it with enough strength. If it were so, I guess it would painfully resonate inside the skull. But to me as a rule of thumb, it should at least get loud in order to maintain tonal balance... just saying. So, a pair of large subwoofers in a combination with just a couple of small bookshelves can't do it justice, can it?

I would say it depends on room size, in a tiny room even a small subwoofer of 6.5"-8" could make things shake a bit, but in a large living room, good luck on that.

and as to colouration thing, one example I recently come across was the "Then" of Anne Marie in Tidal, I really liked the song, but seems the mixing have clipped the mic or introduced quite some noise in it around 1min mark onward. At first I thought was the Genelecs broken, but then checked on TV speaker, some hifiman headphones and UERR earphone it's all there, just the less extending speakers with high distortion throughout the FR range would less emphasis that to my mind. If I took only that recording to audition the speaker it probably will make me turn to a heavily rolled off speaker to compensate.

 

[audiofooled]

I would say it depends on room size, in a tiny room even a small subwoofer of 6.5"-8" could make things shake a bit, but in a large living room, good luck on that.

and as to colouration thing, one example I recently come across was the "Then" of Anne Marie in Tidal, I really liked the song, but seems the mixing have clipped the mic or introduced quite some noise in it around 1min mark onward. At first I thought was the Genelecs broken, but then checked on TV speaker, some hifiman headphones and UERR earphone it's all there, just the less extending speakers with high distortion throughout the FR range would less emphasis that to my mind. If I took only that recording to audition the speaker it probably will make me turn to a heavily rolled off speaker to compensate.

This is definitely one of them "broken mixes" where all of your gear sounds broken too. Good find. Otherwise it would have been a nice song. I see what you mean, I've encountered this a number of times, especially when it comes to remastered tracks. More often than not, loud passages sound like being chopped off when there's no dynamic range left. As well, quite often there are heavily distorted bass frequencies in some mixes. No, one definitely cannot audition the speakers based on one track only. Some tracks sound as if they were made for a clock radio. But I usually don't worry about it. There are a lot of recordings which are done just right, so stick to that.

 

[Bleib]

Similarly, for all of us home theater aficionados who dream of huge subwoofer arrays and go absolutely giddy when a big cannon-shot seems to pressurize the room, I imagine that were any of us to be placed next to a real cannon discharge with our ears wide open, we'd never want to repeat the experience again, never mind in the comfort of our home.

Exactly. Real cannons are a scary experience. And obviously none of us would be able to have neighbors. Not even close by.

 

[YSC]

This is definitely one of them "broken mixes" where all of your gear sounds broken too. Good find. Otherwise it would have been a nice song. I see what you mean, I've encountered this a number of times, especially when it comes to remastered tracks. More often than not, loud passages sound like being chopped off when there's no dynamic range left. As well, quite often there are heavily distorted bass frequencies in some mixes. No, one definitely cannot audition the speakers based on one track only. Some tracks sound as if they were made for a clock radio. But I usually don't worry about it. There are a lot of recordings which are done just right, so stick to that.

Yea this is an kind of extreme example, what I mean was that provided mixes are done with speakers all around the spectrum and then most importantly pros do make mistakes and let these very broken mixes see the light, so there’s nothing like “recalibrating the ears with known mixes fixes all tooling deficiency” thing, which, I believe will show the mix colouration towards the general design trend/flaws in the era of the mix. It does make sense for a mix done in the times where the bbc dip is dominant to sound better from a speaker with the bbc dip.

So I would say if one don’t only listen to a set of collections done in the same era, neutral to the recording would be the most versatile, especially with an extra set of eq mimicking those tunings

 

[MattHooper]

With the possible exception of your final statement, I don't think anyone here would disagree. But, at what would point do we not only allow but encourage limitations in "real life SPL" within a loudspeaker system? As a hobbyist drummer (acoustic), I can unequivocally state that, without suitable hearing protection, there is virtually no pleasure to be had in pounding out a healthy rim shot or cymbal crash while behind or within close proximity to the kit. In sustained playing, such heavy hits would become absolutely torturous very quickly.

Similarly, for all of us home theater aficionados who dream of huge subwoofer arrays and go absolutely giddy when a big cannon-shot seems to pressurize the room, I imagine that were any of us to be placed next to a real cannon discharge with our ears wide open, we'd never want to repeat the experience again, never mind in the comfort of our home.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to capture and reproduce with a large degree of accuracy the tonal qualities of a given drum kit, the subtle textures of the heads, the various resonances / harmonics generated by the drum shells, the stick definition, wash, and wild cacophony of frequencies that can be unleashed by cymbal riding / crashing, etc. As I have a particular ear for these things relative to drums, I can instantly pick up on the extremely pleasant real-life, almost in-the-room accuracy of a pristine recording as opposed to one that doesn't quite get there. Yes, the raw, real-world SPL will be lacking, but, provided your system is capable of reaching your own personal volume limits while maintaining accurate tonality and keeping distortion under control, is that truly a negative?

Yes, my thinking as well. Most systems of the type many of us use or can afford, are limited in being able to produce truly life-like acoustic power and dynamics, especially of something like a drum kit. And that's fine; I don't want to go deaf. I guess that's one reason I put such an emphasis on timbre. I seek a balance where there are enough dynamics to give me some "live" feel, that translate a real drummers emphasis, but also where the timbre of the drums remind me of the real thing. None truly become indistinguishable from the real thing, but for me the "right" timbre of voices/instruments/music through a system is absolutely the number one thing I need. If it's not there, I don't care what else a system is doing. Then I build from there.

I'd say the closest I've had to getting all the elements together - huge soundstage (when in the recording), precise, dense, palpable imaging, lively dynamics, and a believable timbral warmth, was my former Thiel CS3.7 speakers (with my CJ tube amps ). It was the kind of thing where, if I was playing a jazz track and the drummer was playing lightly on the toms, or the audience was clapping, if I snapped my fingers or clapped my own hands or drummed on my own legs, the timbre was essentially the same. This doesn't mean that the instruments in the recording are indistinguishable from live. They aren't as dynamic, propulsive, dense, detailed etc. But the essential tonality and timbre and texture has a "happening right there in front of me, not recorded" quality - like there was little difference between the tonality and presence of instruments in the recording and the sound I'm creating in the room myself. I don't know if this was part of the reason many people were flat out spooked by what they took to be the "realism" of many tracks through that system.

 

[rwortman]

drummed on my own legs, the timbre was essentially the same.

If the skin on your legs is a tight as the drumhead on a tom, you might want to see a doctor.

 

[Holmz]

I don't think toe-in will have a significant effect on the perceived distance to the phantom sources in the mix.

…

I like Gedenkan experiments as much as the next person, but maybe we should just try it and see?

 

[olegtern]

and a believable timbral warmth, was my former Thiel CS3.7 speakers

This could be speculation, but.

Timbre is frequency spectrum + envelope (how harmonics change over time). So if you want a reliable timbre from your speakers (as far as the recordings themselves allow), you need quite smooth frequency response + low group delay (phase delay) at least in areas that are sensitive to our perception, ideally — right-triangle shape step response. And that exactly what you get with your Thiel CS3.7 — time coherent speakers with overall great performance.

As a bonus to the timbre, such speakers can deliver "huge soundstage (when in the recording), precise, dense, palpable imaging" — these things also improve with time coherence. At least if the room doesn't ruin it.

 

[MattHooper]

This could be speculation, but.

Timbre is frequency spectrum + envelope (how harmonics change over time). So if you want a reliable timbre from your speakers (as far as the recordings themselves allow), you need quite smooth frequency response + low group delay (phase delay) at least in areas that are sensitive to our perception, ideally — right-triangle shape step response. And that exactly what you get with your Thiel CS3.7 — time coherent speakers with overall great performance.

As a bonus to the timbre, such speakers can deliver "huge soundstage (when in the recording), precise, dense, palpable imaging" — these things also improve with time coherence. At least if the room doesn't ruin it.

Could be I suppose.

Because the Thiel 3.7s were slightly too big aesthetically for my room I needed to replace them. I went on a massive speaker auditioning binge - Magico, Paradigm Persona, Revel, Focal, Vivid Audio, Monitor Audio, Kii 3, Harbeth, Joseph Audio, Audio Physic, Raidho, etc. The list was long. Of all the speakers I heard the ones that sounded like my 3.7s were the Revel Performa speakers. Both sounded very evenly balanced and neutral from top to bottom. Very similar tonally. But there was something about the timbre of instruments I heard in the Thiels that I found more convincing. The Paradigm Persona speakers also sounded quite similar to the Revel and Thiel, with the exception of the top end which had a peak in the highs which left my ears feeling fatigued after a while.

My Joseph Audio Perspective speakers also have a rising top end, though perhaps because it is more gradual, less peaky, it has never bothered my ears. My Thiels sounded very smooth and not bright in my room, as well. I've yet to hear a regular box speaker sound as utterly coherent and "boxless" as the 3.7s - from bottom to top it seemed just like one driver, couldn't hear any sense of transition. Really amazing.

 

[MattHooper]

Somewhat apropos of this thread:

I visited a high end audio store today - first time since 2019! - and had a nice time listening to the Kii 3 BXT system speakers. This is, as many probably know, the more extensive version of the much lauded Kii 3, with the bass extension module.

The Kii 3, in how well it measures and the way it uses the DSP boundary control to "take out the room effects" in lower frequencies, is perhaps closer to "no speaker" than most. The store, a Kii Audio dealer for years, had carefully set up the system, boundary controls etc.

I'd previously auditioned the Kii 3s in this store, and also at an audio show, but I believe this is the first time I've heard the full BXT version. I certainly don't need to "review" this speaker as there are plenty of informative reviews with actual measurements, e.g.:

Kii THREE Review

Link: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kii_three/ Erin's conclusion: The Kii THREE is one of those game-changing speakers that you hear and you question what you’ve been missing your entire life. From the aesthetic to the way they sound, I love everything about the Kii...

www.audiosciencereview.com

..so I'm just mentioning my personal reaction, with this thread in mind. I was able to select some of my test tracks via Tidal.

The first thing is, as soon as the music came on I immediately recognized the sound. They sounded exactly like when I heard the Kii 3s at the audio show, and exactly like when I auditioned the Kii 3 a few years ago in the store. They say audio memory is unreliable...but there was zero surprise to the sound, more like re-visiting a sound I was somewhat familiar with. (If it's sighted bias, it's an awfully consistent effect).

Anyway, first impression as always is a "neato, where did the room/speakers go?" effect. I'm looking at the speakers, which were closer to the back wall than I'd normally want, so my mind was expecting some sort of obvious bass lift or bulge but...nope...for the most part it was like the 'walls' weren't there, the entire frequency range sounded very even. Stand up bass appeared near the left speaker, yet imaged like a distinct column of bass energy, detached from the speakers, with no sense of bloat or gloming in to the speakers. For electronic bass, stand up bass, synth bass, whatever - my impressions were: even, taught, solid, strong. Yet never overbearing. Bass was so clean I could really hear the tonal quality of different electric basses, and there was one track in which the bass player is plucking two notes close together at once, which so many speakers tend to blur together, making it hard to hear what is happening. The Kii 3 cleaned away any blurring of the notes and it was easy to hear the two different bass strings being plucked together.

The speakers for the most part really disappeared as sound sources, no sense of box resonance at all. There was always this very sure sense of accuracy. It came from two main characteristics: 1. The evenness of the sound. It wasn't "pear shaped" like many audiophile speakers, which might be emphasized in the bass, have scoop outs here and there in the frequency range making some sounds, e.g. percussion, trumpet, cymbals sound thin. On the Kii, no frequency sounded exaggerated or recessed (especially evident in how even piano recordings sounded), so everything was given what sounded like it's full due. Even little things like wood blocks or cow bells were not thinned out as they can be on some speakers, but had solidity and substance which helped drive the rhythm of the pieces.

Vocals revealed artifice when in the recording, but the artifice wasn't exaggerated or strident. When acoustic guitar parts popped in and out of tracks I know well, it just sounded "right" and balanced. The other thing that gave an impression of accuracy was 2. How precisely the speakers revealed information in the recording. For instance on of my test recordings starts with a vocal, cowbell, plucked guitars. The way the Kii system revealed the cowbell in a very specific space near the vocal, in a very specific reverb, the reverb having it's own little boundary around the cowbell. The same with the vocal. They sat in 3D spatial locations, but not in the exaggerated way that some speakers may spray the high end all around off walls to create spaciousness. Rather, it felt more precise by being clarified of any box or obvious speaker/room influence - simply like the speakers themselves had been removed, revealing these objects mixed exactly as they were....mixed. There really was a peering in to the studio vibe.

So, anyway, those impressions just continued through various tracks. The sound was spacious, the speakers disappeared but the sound had excellent force and solidity, which is a neat trick.

So, thinking of this thread, would I buy these speakers? No. Not personally, not for my own music listening. Despite being able to enjoy and appreciate all of the above, they didn't grab me at all and make me want to keep listening. This is because, tonally, nothing sounded "right" or natural to my ears. Wood blocks, voices, acoustic guitars, stand up bass, etc...it all sounded sort of timbrally black and white, slightly dark. I never got the feeling "That's the real sparkle of an acoustic guitar, THAT's the woodiness of a stand up bass" etc. If something doesn't click in to tonally the "right" colors in my brain, it just sounds wrong.
That's not an objective claim the Kii speakers are "wrong" in some way; it's only that I carry around my own mental image of what I'm looking for, how I like things to sound, and these speakers don't do it for me. As I've said, I find all systems sound colored in one way or another, because even the most neutral speakers can't truly reproduce the range of timbral complexity of real life. So it's all watered down, even in a system like this. So I go with the system that makes me want to stay in place listening to the music intently, rather than feel like I could get up, walk away and do other things with the music in the background.

Before I left I actually listened to a big pair of Martin Logan hybrid speakers in the same store. I'm not the biggest ML fan, but I played some of the same tracks and...boom!...the timbre had that more realistic airiness and the timbral "color" warmed up more towards what I look for. I'm sure the ML don't measure as flat as the Kiis. (I think ML tends to have a bit of upper mid emphasis if I remember). But I did percieve more of a woody timbre to string instruments, that recognizable golden sparkle to acoustic guitar. The same guitar that was very precisely described on the Kii, but never once sounded to me like the real thing, now sounded more like I could believe someone was playing guitar in front of me. It wasn't perfect, but it would have compelled me to sit and listen longer.

Hearing the Kii speakers again also reminded me why I went with the Joseph Audio speakers from that store. Whatever the prowess of the Kii, I just didn't hear that addictive utter purity/smoothness/lack of grain that I do from the Joseph speakers. The Kiis sounded "average" in that respect, more electronic, mechanical. And the Josephs also invoke all the right timbral colors in my brain.

I got home, spun a lot of the same tracks on my Thiel 2.7s which I currently have set up (powered by my CJ amps) and...."aaahhh".....there was that rich, organic, lively "really happening in front of me" quality I seek. When wood blocks or cowbells entered the mix they sounded so much like the tone of real instruments being played "right there" in the room, something I didn't get at any point listening to the Kii. And...OMG, the way the Thiels also disappear and create such incredible holographic sonic images. Blew me away even after listening to the far more expensive Kii system.

So can I see what, say, an ASR forum member sees in the Kii speakers? Abso-effing-lutely! They are amazing! But...preference being preference, I prefer other speakers. The great measurements certainly predict a lot about the speaker, but at least for me, I can't predict whether I'll "click" with a speaker unless I audition it for myself.

Oh, I have to give massive props to the Kii controller! It's a beautiful, smooth-to-the-touch volume knob with additional controls. This is JUST the type of volume control I've been pining after, as I've said in this thread:

My Kingdom For A Remote Volume Knob! can this be made?

I was watching an old Darko video in which he discussed his appreciation for being able to control an audio system with a remote volume knob. He gets to the "why" of this around 51 seconds in: I was like: YES! Someone gets me! I place a high value on the combination of ergonomics and...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Whoever here has the Kii speakers, you are a lucky bugger!