Kawai MP11SE (digital piano) Amp Suggestions for a Newbie

[GXAlan]

I trained on a Kawai salon grand and currently own the MP8.

The vibrations from the bass notes are a nice tactile component to the feel of music.

Any microscopic DSP delay with digital speakers can affect the subjective realism of the digital piano. I found that pure analog amplification worked the best for me.

I haven’t had a chance to try the JBL 708P with the MP8, which I now have access to, but will let you know. That said, I would try to get the biggest speakers you can fit and a basic amplifier with minimal DSP.

 

[jseyfert3]

You have a $2000 stage piano you are short changing its sound if you skimp out on amplification. It's somewhat heavy to gig with but people who do gig with that quality of piano would be pairing it with something like an RCF TT-08 A II.

I know you have a Kawai but there is a user called cphollis on the Nord forums who has an epic thread comparing pretty much every active speaker that people use for giging with recommendations.

$3500

To clarify though, I am NOT gigging with this, even though it is a stage piano. A 1000 Watt amp for public performances is definitely not what I’m looking for.

 

[Gadgety]

Very nice piano action there. One big advantage is the ability to pick your amp and speakers freely, and that you can change your set up as your budget allows in the future. Have you thought about how deep the piano notes shall go? A grand goes down to 27.5 Hz, A0; when tuned to A4= 440 Hz. If you want realistic playing levels, at home, that's going to take over 100 dB when playing fortissimo, even more when playing forte fortissimo. This means hauling a lot of air to generate the SPL, specially so without too much distortion. For each octave of extension your speakers will have to displace four times as much air. This means serious woofer volume. Anyway I'd start with setting up the intended loudness level you aim to be playing. Another consideration is the listening distance to your speakers. The picture you have of your current speakers set on the piano suggests very close listening distance. For such close listening distance I'd go for coaxials and perhaps a sub, or a few subs. If you're keeping your soon-to-be speakers you'd have to set them up farther away to get a cohesive sound.

 

[dshreter]

It sounds like you have a matching set of speakers for creating a surround sound system if you use the Human Model 61s you ordered for that. They may not be the best speakers and your AVR isn't either but they will do the job. On this forum we obsess over the smallest details in measurements for fun, that doesn't mean you can't get enjoyment from a system comprised of poorly measuring gear. I would recommend you follow through with your Human speaker surround sound system and go with something different and more objectively high performance for the keyboard. That way you get to have fun learning from DIY and surround sound setup without investing much more money, but you also get to experience objectively great audio performance with your keyboard system. That's what I would do anyway.

The reason so many people here recommend active studio monitors is because they often given excellent objective performance for a reasonable price. Stand-alone amplifiers may measure better than the ones built into these monitors but they cost much more and don't offer an audible benefit in most cases. There is also an inherent advantage to active speaker design. This is partly due to the direct connection between amplifier and speaker driver but more importantly, the better crossover implementation that can be done actively.


I'm no expert when it comes to keyboards, so maybe you don't need another device for volume control. But have a look at the Motu M4, excellent objective performance and a whole lot of functionality. You can connect it to your keyboards analog outputs and connect the monitor outputs to active speakers. With the zero-latency hardware monitoring option, you can send audio directly from those inputs to the monitor outputs with volume control. You can also connect it to your computer via USB and play tunes that way. Or connect it to the keyboard via Midi and use plugins in the computer. There are also microphone inputs if you ever wanted to record with a couple of those.

As for studio monitors, a couple good options include the Kali LP-6v2 and the JBL 306P MK II.

I'm no expert when it comes to keyboards, so maybe you don't need another device for volume control. But have a look at the Motu M4, excellent objective performance and a whole lot of functionality. You can connect it to your keyboards analog outputs and connect the monitor outputs to active speakers. With the zero-latency hardware monitoring option, you can send audio directly from those inputs to the monitor outputs with volume control. You can also connect it to your computer via USB and play tunes that way. Or connect it to the keyboard via Midi and use plugins in the computer. There are also microphone inputs if you ever wanted to record with a couple of those.

I agree that an interface and active speakers would be a good way to go. Having the flexibility to incorporate a microphone and music sources is a good idea, and it makes an excellent volume control too.

 

[AnalogSteph]

A pair of KH80s with a decent studio sub would be grand (pardon the pun), but by the OP's modest standards, a pair of LP6v2s with suitable mounting should be thrilling already. They're flat to ~45 Hz with -6 dB at about 40 Hz, which should be close enough to fullrange here. Thankfully it's a digital piano. Realistic church organ would be a different challenge...

I've had a look at the HUMAN Model 61s.

Two knocks against the construction are obvious right away:
1. The woofer is not flush-mounted, as would be standard these days - edge diffraction, particularly right next to the tweeter.
2. The baffle appears to be slightly inset - more edge diffraction right there.
3. And then the grille appears to be a frame job. Guess what, even more edge diffraction when it's on.

That's too 1980s for my tastes. I imagine a liberal application of foam strips around the offending edges would help (that's what people used to do in those days), but it's not like they're giving these away at $571 the pair (which is not that much cheaper than some Elac DBR62s), plus a yet-to-be-procured decent power amp. I'd send 'em back and investigate the active monitor route.

Modern speakers should have zero edges sticking out. So maybe like this:

Or like this:

Or like this at least:

 

[jseyfert3]

I trained on a Kawai salon grand and currently own the MP8.

The vibrations from the bass notes are a nice tactile component to the feel of music.

Any microscopic DSP delay with digital speakers can affect the subjective realism of the digital piano. I found that pure analog amplification worked the best for me.

Nice. I looked it up, it appears the MP8 was the successor to the MP10, which was the successor to the MP11.

Hmm. On the piano forum there are tons of people that rave about using computers to generate live sounds. There are discussions of latency, but it seems like it's pretty darn fast, all in all. Guess I'll just experiment with it. Different people have different ability to notice latency issues.

Very nice piano action there. One big advantage is the ability to pick your amp and speakers freely, and that you can change your set up as your budget allows in the future. Have you thought about how deep the piano notes shall go? A grand goes down to 27.5 Hz, A0; when tuned to A4= 440 Hz. If you want realistic playing levels, at home, that's going to take over 100 dB when playing fortissimo, even more when playing forte fortissimo. This means hauling a lot of air to generate the SPL, specially so without too much distortion. For each octave of extension your speakers will have to displace four times as much air. This means serious woofer volume. Anyway I'd start with setting up the intended loudness level you aim to be playing. Another consideration is the listening distance to your speakers. The picture you have of your current speakers set on the piano suggests very close listening distance. For such close listening distance I'd go for coaxials and perhaps a sub, or a few subs. If you're keeping your soon-to-be speakers you'd have to set them up farther away to get a cohesive sound.

I did think of the lower frequencies. When searching though, I found someone that posted a FFT of A0 as generated by a computer (one of the nice sampled sounds libraries you can buy). IIRC the sound at 27 Hz was as much as -12 dB from the peaks, the sound was absolutely dominated by higher harmonics and resonances. So it seemed unlikely to make a huge difference of going down to ~20 Hz.

A pair of KH80s with a decent studio sub would be grand (pardon the pun), but by the OP's modest standards, a pair of LP6v2s with suitable mounting should be thrilling already. They're flat to ~45 Hz with -6 dB at about 40 Hz, which should be close enough to fullrange here. Thankfully it's a digital piano. Realistic church organ would be a different challenge...

Simulating a church organ would be really difficult. As a kid, I played (extremely simple) songs at church on our church organ, cira 1890's. Incredible organ for such a church. Not one of those little reed organs, this was a full blown, built-in organ. Biggest pipes were like 16' long or so? Something like over 3000 pipes total. Trying to simulate that experience would be...difficult, to say the least.

I've had a look at the HUMAN Model 61s.

Two knocks against the construction are obvious right away:
1. The woofer is not flush-mounted, as would be standard these days - edge diffraction, particularly right next to the tweeter.
2. The baffle appears to be slightly inset - more edge diffraction right there.
3. And then the grille appears to be a frame job. Guess what, even more edge diffraction when it's on.

That's too 1980s for my tastes. I imagine a liberal application of foam strips around the offending edges would help (that's what people used to do in those days), but it's not like they're giving these away at $571 the pair (which is not that much cheaper than some Elac DBR62s), plus a yet-to-be-procured decent power amp. I'd send 'em back and investigate the active monitor route.

Yeah, I notice he insets his baffles. On the model 81 speakers, it appears inset even more, and pictures show the grill is flush, or almost so, with the rounded edges of the sides of the case. In other words, he's making it look nicer with the grill on, not really optimizing for grill off. For the DIY stuff, he talks about either beveling grill frames at 45° to reduce defraction effects, or adding a large strip of heavy felt. I suspect he is expecting most people prefer a grill and some amount of defraction instead of building for least defraction in a design meant to run bare?

He does flush mount the woofers on his 81's.

Oh, and one more note:

Carefully designed angles on the inner edge of the grill frame and curved cabinet edges to reduce diffraction effects.

I can update how he did the grill when I get the speakers (ETA Dec 22nd) to see exactly what he does with the grill.

 

[jseyfert3]

Just get a aiyima a07, be happy not have spend 'money for nothing'.
I look at your setup, and think hey this guy wants to play piano. No computer, no mixer, no sequencer, no midi. So just get a nice littel amp, thats it.

Honestly, this is very temping. I read the review, and it's recommended. $80 on Amazon. If it doesn't last, it's 1/5th the cost of the Topping PA5. Not something I'd cry about. I see the benefits of monitor speakers, but since I already bought the HUMAN 61's this would get me going and I can change things later if desired.

You would also need to think about how you switch inputs between piano and music. Some amps built with the Hypex modules are so called integrated amps with input switching and volume control built in. Here is a link to an EU assembler - I'm not aware which USAnian assemblers do this:

If I want to play music, I could, in theory, just swap input connectors. Or if I want a computer (eventually I do), I do not have to connect the computer's DAC to the amp directly. I can run MIDI from the piano to the computer, and the computer DAC output can feed the LINE IN. And just shut off the internal sound.

While the XLR balanced outputs are fixed level, the internal sound still have sliders that would control volume (even to the fixed output), the main volume slider controls overall volume to the headphones and to LINE OUT (unbalanced outputs), and the LINE IN has a dedicated slider as well. In short, I can use the piano itself as a mixer, to some extent. Anything on LINE IN will get mixed with the internal piano sounds (if turned on) and then passed to the output. It's intended to mix in other instruments, so no reason it wouldn't work to connect to the computer DAC if using computer to generate audio via MIDI, allowing a basic amp with one input to output either internal piano audio or computer piano audio (or other sound effects) without an amp that has multiple inputs.

 

[GXAlan]

Nice. I looked it up, it appears the MP8 was the successor to the MP10, which was the successor to the MP11.

Yup. The main reason people go with the MP9000->MP9500->MP8->MP8 II -> MP10 -> MP11->MP11SE is the mechanism. There have been subtle mechanical modifications over the years with the main one being lighter weight going from the MP8 to MP8 II.

The electronics have obviously improved a lot with each generation.

Hmm. On the piano forum there are tons of people that rave about using computers to generate live sounds. There are discussions of latency, but it seems like it's pretty darn fast, all in all. Guess I'll just experiment with it. Different people have different ability to notice latency issues.

It depends. If you are composing and recording music, it’s different than if you play classical music and want a stage piano to practice in a physical space where an actual piano is impractical.

The sample size of the Kawai is decent for the grand piano samples but also pretty lousy for the other MIDI standards. Likewise, many digital pianos let replicate the different tones including Steinway/Yamaha/Fazioli/Kawai whereas Kawai only lets you have Kawai. The old Kawai digital pianos got by with low sample sizes in the range of 64-256MB so some of the decay was digitally generated versus the PC libraries which have very rich recordings in the gigabyte range. Roland V Piano is full mathematical.

In the case where you want a grand piano in an apartment, the latency is very noticeable if you are doing the fast runs for something like Chopin’s Fantasie Impromptu. Just FYI.

The MIDI engine of the Kawai is worse than something from Yamaha, Korg or Roland for example.

I did think of the lower frequencies... So it seemed unlikely to make a huge difference of going down to ~20 Hz.

You don’t need to go down that low but the vibrations of the piano are helpful for capturing that last bit of feel. Again, the idea being that the Kawai’s strength is feel. In near field, I would prefer the a 6”-8” woofer over a 4-5” woofer (from the same manufacturer) or adding a small subwoofer is helpful.

I think your basic first step makes sense with a basic amp to start. Down the line going with a larger studio monitor or finding a place for floorstanders like the Studio 590 will be great.

 

[tomtoo]

Honestly, this is very temping. I read the review, and it's recommended. $80 on Amazon. If it doesn't last, it's 1/5th the cost of the Topping PA5. Not something I'd cry about. I see the benefits of monitor speakers, but since I already bought the HUMAN 61's this would get me going and I can change things later if desired.


If I want to play music, I could, in theory, just swap input connectors. Or if I want a computer (eventually I do), I do not have to connect the computer's DAC to the amp directly. I can run MIDI from the piano to the computer, and the computer DAC output can feed the LINE IN. And just shut off the internal sound.

While the XLR balanced outputs are fixed level, the internal sound still have sliders that would control volume (even to the fixed output), the main volume slider controls overall volume to the headphones and to LINE OUT (unbalanced outputs), and the LINE IN has a dedicated slider as well. In short, I can use the piano itself as a mixer, to some extent. Anything on LINE IN will get mixed with the internal piano sounds (if turned on) and then passed to the output. It's intended to mix in other instruments, so no reason it wouldn't work to connect to the computer DAC if using computer to generate audio via MIDI, allowing a basic amp with one input to output either internal piano audio or computer piano audio (or other sound effects) without an amp that has multiple inputs.
View attachment 251404

See invest the 80$, and than decide after having the experience to go another way or not. I not see what the other way realy would be good for. The piano(btw. nice one) and the speaker make the sound. If the amp is not bad, it wont change anything. If you unhappy with the speakers, then change them. At this point you had to decide go active or not. And if you would decide to go active, no need for a amp anymore. Passive could still be better with less tweeter noise. But thats very personal decission. 80$ to get some experience is not much. If you not realy happy, sell it. Compared to the price of the piano its nothing. Btw, if iam not wrong you have 4 way eq with para mid on the piano. So many ways to influence the sound of it. Hope you have fun, and never forget the most importend part of a piano.,..is the player, . And why not open a thread in the pro section about the piano after some experience with it?

 

[FrantzM]

Hi

This, comes from left field... Far left field.. To remain in the Baseball jargon: "A Curveball from left field" .
...
What about the original Apple Home Pod loudspeaker... Yes, the one with omni-directional radiation pattern?
Would simulate what a mechanical piano does in term of pattern to a good extent? Wouldn't it? And rather well within its limitations? Would not play loud or too low but ... radiations patterns would match, very much .. plus decent sound... but would reach 40Hz, even under that if I am to go with @amirm measurements...
It is dicosntinued but can be found, new on eBay. A Listing <$300.oo

ASR (Here ) Apple HomePod Review (Smart Speaker)

Review from Rtings.com

Happy holidays!

Peace.

 

[jseyfert3]

One more thing. Two, really. Firstly, it looks like I'll be sending the HUMAN 61's out to Amirm for testing. So we'll know in the nearish future objectively how good they are, or are not.

And secondly, I found the thread on semi-anechoic DIY speaker testing. I figure I will buy a microphone like the UMIK-1, so I can test any speakers I build or acquire in the future, and more importantly use Room EQ or similar to measure the speakers in-place at the piano and adjust positioning and the piano's EQ for best sound, given the space constraints I have here. (I realize a DAC I could upload a curve from room EQ may be easiest, but given the talk of latency for live music it seems first order of operations would be to do any EQ adjustments from the built in EQ on the piano, limited or annoying as that may be, as presumably adjustments there would have no effect on the latency since they can apply them to the generated sound as it's being generated, and I could always try a DAC later if I wanted to)

So more data, and testing, to come. Yay! (I like testing and test data)

Hi

This, comes from left field... Far left field.. To remain in the Baseball jargon: "A Curveball from left field" .
...
What about the original Apple Home Pod loudspeaker... Yes, the one with omni-directional radiation pattern?
Would simulate what a mechanical piano does in term of pattern to a good extent? Wouldn't it? And rather well within its limitations? Would not play loud or too low but ... radiations patterns would match, very much .. plus decent sound... but would reach 40Hz, even under that if I am to go with @amirm measurements...
It is dicosntinued but can be found, new on eBay. A Listing <$300.oo

ASR (Here ) Apple HomePod Review (Smart Speaker)

Review from Rtings.com

Happy holidays!

Peace.

Well, I certainly appreciate oddball ideas too. The pattern probably would simulate a acoustic piano better than most speakers. Question is, is that a good thing? If the room isn't ideal, it may be better to not try to have a super wide pattern, to cut down on reflections.

In any case, Airplay/WiFi only probably cuts it out, even if it was an excellent speaker. That's more fiddling than I'd want to do if I wanted to just play the piano, and given the internal processing it almost certainly does plus WiFi lag and lag of whatever device is sending the audio to the WiFi (my piano certainly cannot), given the prior discussion of latency it's probably out too.

 

[FrantzM]

One more thing. Two, really. Firstly, it looks like I'll be sending the HUMAN 61's out to Amirm for testing. So we'll know in the nearish future objectively how good they are, or are not.

And secondly, I found the thread on semi-anechoic DIY speaker testing. I figure I will buy a microphone like the UMIK-1, so I can test any speakers I build or acquire in the future, and more importantly use Room EQ or similar to measure the speakers in-place at the piano and adjust positioning and the piano's EQ for best sound, given the space constraints I have here. (I realize a DAC I could upload a curve from room EQ may be easiest, but given the talk of latency for live music it seems first order of operations would be to do any EQ adjustments from the built in EQ on the piano, limited or annoying as that may be, as presumably adjustments there would have no effect on the latency since they can apply them to the generated sound as it's being generated, and I could always try a DAC later if I wanted to)

So more data, and testing, to come. Yay! (I like testing and test data)


Well, I certainly appreciate oddball ideas too. The pattern probably would simulate a acoustic piano better than most speakers. Question is, is that a good thing? If the room isn't ideal, it may be better to not try to have a super wide pattern, to cut down on reflections.

In any case, Airplay/WiFi only probably cuts it out, even if it was an excellent speaker. That's more fiddling than I'd want to do if I wanted to just play the piano, and given the internal processing it almost certainly does plus WiFi lag and lag of whatever device is sending the audio to the WiFi (my piano certainly cannot), given the prior discussion of latency it's probably out too.

Think about it this way:
with a piano you would have reflections.. That is the nature of the beast, err, piano. A mechanical piano has an omni or quasi-omni. As for the lag, it depends.. It could be minimal and imperceptible with a good Bluetooth or Wi-Fi converter. The solution is not plug'n-play. I believe it to be good as it would present the piano in a way that is closer to a real acoustic/mechanical piano; in a way that no pair or a single non-omni speaker, however good, could. Omni is IMO the better solution. You decide.

Peace.

 

[tomtoo]

One more thing. Two, really. Firstly, it looks like I'll be sending the HUMAN 61's out to Amirm for testing. So we'll know in the nearish future objectively how good they are, or are not.

And secondly, I found the thread on semi-anechoic DIY speaker testing. I figure I will buy a microphone like the UMIK-1, so I can test any speakers I build or acquire in the future, and more importantly use Room EQ or similar to measure the speakers in-place at the piano and adjust positioning and the piano's EQ for best sound, given the space constraints I have here. (I realize a DAC I could upload a curve from room EQ may be easiest, but given the talk of latency for live music it seems first order of operations would be to do any EQ adjustments from the built in EQ on the piano, limited or annoying as that may be, as presumably adjustments there would have no effect on the latency since they can apply them to the generated sound as it's being generated, and I could always try a DAC later if I wanted to)

So more data, and testing, to come. Yay! (I like testing and test data)


Well, I certainly appreciate oddball ideas too. The pattern probably would simulate a acoustic piano better than most speakers. Question is, is that a good thing? If the room isn't ideal, it may be better to not try to have a super wide pattern, to cut down on reflections.

In any case, Airplay/WiFi only probably cuts it out, even if it was an excellent speaker. That's more fiddling than I'd want to do if I wanted to just play the piano, and given the internal processing it almost certainly does plus WiFi lag and lag of whatever device is sending the audio to the WiFi (my piano certainly cannot), given the prior discussion of latency it's probably out too.

You want to play the piano, your words. So you not have to care about great meassuring speaker. You have to care about the best sound for you. You are at the production side, not on the reproduction side. Dont mix this up. Two different parts. Get the sound from YOUr piano you enjoy most. How ever the speakers measure is not that importend. Playing conserved music is one thing, getting the sound from the piano you like at your place is very different. Try, get your experience. If you want as near as possible to the pure sound of the instrument get some neuman or genelec, but if this realy worth it? Dont think so.

 

[jseyfert3]

Think about it this way:
with a piano you would have reflections.. That is the nature of the beast, err, piano. A mechanical piano has an omni or quasi-omni. As for the lag, it depends.. It could be minimal and imperceptible with a good Bluetooth or Wi-Fi converter. The solution is not plug'n-play. I believe it to be good as it would present the piano in a way that is closer to a real acoustic/mechanical piano; in a way that no pair or a single non-omni speaker, however good, could. Omni is IMO the better solution. You decide.

Peace.

Yes, a piano would have reflections, certainly. But there's optimal placement for an acoustical piano too, which few of them ever get. And since we don't have an acoustical piano, we don't have to try to pretend we do....sort of.

Yes, we want it to sound like an acoustic piano. But do we want it to sound like an upright shoved in the corner of a room, or a grand piano in a concert hall or lounge? That is what I meant by we may not want an omnidirectional speaker. Perhaps I don't understand speakers well enough yet, but it seems like by not using an omnidirectional speaker you could find speaker placements that may be better than an ominidirectional speaker precisely because they are not ominidirectional, and because the location of the piano isn't ideal (and yes, you probably can't optimize playback for the entire room, but I'm thinking more for the person playing, or perhaps for some area of the room).

Does that make sense? Or am I just totally off the rails here?

 

[Doodski]

Does that make sense? Or am I just totally off the rails here?

You're making sense. It's good advice.

 

[GXAlan]

Does that make sense? Or am I just totally off the rails here?

The Kawai itself will generate the reverb and the way it is mic’d means that you DO NOT need omnidirectional speakers for an realistic mix. By default it comes very close to sitting at the chair (priority to pianist) but it can be configured as needed. As they note, sometimes mono makes the most sense for you to mix as appropriate in post.

Kawai MP Stage Pianos

Kawai MP stage pianos - for music professionals who do not accept compromise.

www.kawaimp.com

 

[chelgrian]

Simulating a church organ would be really difficult. As a kid, I played (extremely simple) songs at church on our church organ, cira 1890's. Incredible organ for such a church. Not one of those little reed organs, this was a full blown, built-in organ. Biggest pipes were like 16' long or so? Something like over 3000 pipes total. Trying to simulate that experience would be...difficult, to say the least.

Hauptwerk – Virtual Pipe Organ

www.hauptwerk.com

The expensive bit is the organ console, a friend has a system and he spent far more on the console than on the software and the speaker system.

There's a less expensive system installed in a local church where the stops are done on a touch screen instead of a physical console.

Many actual otherwise non synthesised organs have digital 32' pipes due to the amount of space required for real ones even if they are folded.

 

[jseyfert3]

This organ certainly had no digital portion. The only electronics at all was a switch added to turn on an air blower. The blower was not original, the organ was too old for that. The original air supply, which was in the back of the organ, was a big leather bellows connected to a wooden arm. Someone would stand back there and pump air while the organist played. In case there was not someone available to pump air, there were also two large pedals under the console, that the organist could pump alternately with their feet to supply air to the organ (loosing, of course, the ability to play the foot keyboard). I never saw either in operation, but my piano teacher who played organ at church most of the time said she did use the pedals one time when the power went out in the middle of a service. So they were still operational. A 100% mechanical organ, with zero electronics. Our priest had told me it was difficult to find people who were able to work on and repair organs of that age.

Anyhow, I received my HUMAN 61 speakers. I’ve not used them yet, but I did unpack them. They were well packed, and even though the box had a break in the cardboard from shipping the speakers appeared completely undamaged.

Front of one speaker.

A poster had previously mentioned the woofers were not recessed. They actually are recessed, with the metal ring around the woofer flush with the baffle. The woofers have a foam ring around them, which is roughly the height of the surround, and this foam ring is proud of the front of the baffle.

While the baffle is recessed, the foam ring on the woofers is slightly proud of the front edge of the speakers.

The back of the speakers, showing the port. Additionally, and the product page didn’t mention this, but each speaker was provided with a plug for the port, so if positioning didn’t allow free airflow from the port, or simply to try it as both a sealed and vented speaker and allow you to choose which you preferred, you can plug the port and run it as a sealed speaker.

The grills are not what I expected. From reading his page on making grills, I expected a bevel facing the drivers and facing outwards. Instead what these grills have is the opposite. There is a half width bevel at 45°, but it faces the drivers, not the other way around. There’s no bevel on the front side of the grill frame, just a 90° corner (not shown).

The front edges of the bevel are rounded on the outside.

The last thing I don’t understand is why the baffle is inset from the front rounded edges of the speaker case. I initially thought when viewing his product page that this was perhaps so the grills could sit more flush into the case. Certainly pictures of his 81’s appear to show that to be the case. But these grills actually sit on top of the front edge of the speaker case, so they are above the front baffle by the distance of the baffle to the front edges of the speaker case.

He did mention in the instructions a cabinet supplier, so it seems he is not building the cases himself, at least for this model.

In any case, this is what they look like with the grill in place.

I’ve not fired these up yet, will test them out either tonight or tomorrow. As I haven’t selected and bought an amp yet for the piano, I will likely use them with my AVR for initial testing.

 

[GXAlan]

I’ve not fired these up yet, will test them out either tonight or tomorrow. As I haven’t selected and bought an amp yet for the piano, I will likely use them with my AVR for initial testing.

Nice photos! Eager to hear you opinions. For an AVR, you can compare pure direct mode versus a digital mode to get a sense of the latency.

 

[jseyfert3]

Well, the only issue is I have no other “good” speakers to compare these with. But I will still give my opinion, such that it will be.