Kii THREE versus KII THREE/BXT

[svart-hvitt]

What do you hope to see from the measurements?

Presumably the manufacturer hasn't done anything stupid like getting the timing of adjacent drive units wrong, or one driver with completely the wrong level, a tweeter that stops working at 10kHz, etc.

Unless you do a Spin-o-Rama (TM) test in three dimensions you can't establish whether the cardioid/line array stuff does what it's supposed to - but then you go back to the first point: presumably the manufacturers haven't done anything stupid, and the system works as they intend, within the laws of physics.

So really, any 'measurements' we can make are going to be very, very boring, merely confirming that the speakers basically work - which I would never doubt. Beyond that, no one has the equipment, time or skills to truly check that the manufacturer hasn't got their business wrong. And to do so would imply that 'we' know more about this business than the people who designed the speaker!

What a measurement could do is highlight changes before-after BXT.

 

[Cosmik]

What a measurement could do is highlight changes before-after BXT.

What are you looking for? Greater bass extension? Well, apart from the confounding effects of 'line array' on the in-room response (what is really an improvement in directivity and timing might be interpreted as a reduction in bass extension!), the BXT might be relieving the Three of overheating and having to use its clever limiting system, meaning that the most important differences are 'dynamic' and only show up after the speaker has been playing very loud for several minutes. Only by listening to what the manufacturer says (and reading between the lines) would we be aware of this.

Lower distortion? Well in another thread we have been discussing how difficult this is to measure meaningfully in speakers - for us amateurs at least.

You will get far more value from listening to the manufacturer's description of what the unit is intended to do, and assuming that they haven't done anything stupid!

 

[andreasmaaan]

From the web site:

«A third enclosure houses signal and power distribution and may be optionally used as a decoupling base unit for each tower».

That’s all I know...

Thanks Couldn't find that info somehow.

 

[Cosmik]

What a measurement could do is highlight changes before-after BXT.

An analogy (sorry @Wombat). Supposing a TV manufacturer comes up with a new innovation: a curved, slightly 'wrap-around' screen, made possible because of a new LED technology. The claim is that it makes TV viewing more immersive. Well, in a video science review site, someone says to a dealer "We need measurements".

What would happen would be as follows:

The video reviewer would place the new TV in their standard TV geometry measuring rig, where a high resolution calibrated camera measures linearity and geometry. The results would be appalling, including complete loss of definition measured at the edges of the screen.

Someone might point out the flaw in these measurements, or they might not.

In this new world of curved screens, a new measurement might eventually be created: a check on radius of curvature. It would be the most boring measurement ever devised, merely checking that the manufacturer hasn't done something stupid. The best TV would meet its intended profile with a tolerance of +/-0.3mm, while the worst would be +/-0.7mm - although unbeknown to the reviewer it would vary depending on ambient temperature and how long the TV had been turned on. It would make zero difference to the viewing experience.

In reality, measurements would be very, very boring and tell you nothing about the new innovation. The only meaningful 'test' would be "How does it look?". Does it make viewing more immersive? Can several people watch it at once? And then if you came back to the same person six months later, would he tell you "Actually, it was just a novelty. After a month I went round to a friend's house and found that I preferred their flat TV after all."

 

[andreasmaaan]

One thing that Kii seem to be doing first in the home audio market, to my knowledge, is going a step beyond what you might call simple cardioid.

The simple approach, which has been used in PA sub alignments for decades, simply applies a uniform delay to the rear (or in this case side-rear) woofer, determined by its distance behind the forward-firing woofer and the frequency range of interest.

What Kii apprears to be doing is applying a complex frequency-dependent delay, which allows the cardioid pattern to operate uniformly over a broader range of frequencies.

Or so I surmise...

 

[Thomas savage]

But Keith , do they flap your trouser legs ? If they do can we see a video?

 

[SIY]

One day, I hope to hear a decent demo of the kiis. Every time they've shown at AXPONA, the sound was horrible- FAR too loud, FAR too much bass, really bad source material.

First time I've seen Bruno in a beard. Interesting look for him.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Gradient did not "pioneer" it. Geithain built and sold cardioid speakers long before Gradient did. Keith has never suggested that D&D or Kii invented cardioid bass.

Geithain introduced cardioid bass in 2002:

https://www.me-geithain.de/de/assets/media/presse_pdf/Studiomagazin-50-Jahre-MEG-06_2010.pdf

Gradient Revolution speaker was introduced in 1994.

Amphion, another Finn, have made cardioid designs since the mid 1990s as well.

Keith has never suggested in direct writing that Kii or DD invented cardioid, but his salesman language gives the impression that Kii and DD are groundbreaking.

This is a science forum. Acknowledging the history, heritage and legacy is central in scientific inquiries. That’s why scientific papers (almost) always contain a literature overview before the author writes about his new addition to the accumulation of knowledge. Kii and DD have shown little interest in acknowledging the history, heritage and legacy - which gives people the impression that they’re dealing with novel concepts instead of refined versions of old and already proven ideas.

This lack of acknowledging history, heritage and legacy is annoying, wouldn’t you agree? Paying homage to previous scientists, researchers and designers is a virtue.

 

[svart-hvitt]

An analogy (sorry @Wombat). Supposing a TV manufacturer comes up with a new innovation: a curved, slightly 'wrap-around' screen, made possible because of a new LED technology. The claim is that it makes TV viewing more immersive. Well, in a video science review site, someone says to a dealer "We need measurements".

What would happen would be as follows:

The video reviewer would place the new TV in their standard TV geometry measuring rig, where a high resolution calibrated camera measures linearity and geometry. The results would be appalling, including complete loss of definition measured at the edges of the screen.

Someone might point out the flaw in these measurements, or they might not.

In this new world of curved screens, a new measurement might eventually be created: a check on radius of curvature. It would be the most boring measurement ever devised, merely checking that the manufacturer hasn't done something stupid. The best TV would meet its intended profile with a tolerance of +/-0.3mm, while the worst would be +/-0.7mm - although unbeknown to the reviewer it would vary depending on ambient temperature and how long the TV had been turned on. It would make zero difference to the viewing experience.

In reality, measurements would be very, very boring and tell you nothing about the new innovation. The only meaningful 'test' would be "How does it look?". Does it make viewing more immersive? Can several people watch it at once? And then if you came back to the same person six months later, would he tell you "Actually, it was just a novelty. After a month I went round to a friend's house and found that I preferred their flat TV after all."

I agree that idea driven engineering is great. However, empirical tests are advatageously used to test one’s hypothesis. So a mix between theory and empirical work is better than solely being idea driven. Measurements can take many forms; use your creativity: Sweeps of tones to microphone in SS, blind tests, recording via microphone for playback etc etc.

We have seen that Kii altered specifications of its frequency response without notice. Kii also claimed Kii3 was a small «big speaker», and then they suddenly introduced BXT. For two years, Keith & Co claimed Kii was a full range Elephant slayer. So independent measurements seem to be in order when you can’t trust what the producer and their chorus say.

 

[Purité Audio]

What I find somewhat surprising is why other manufacturers haven’t manufactured a Kii/8C type speaker, when they have so many advatages, I suppose they just don’t have the know how!
Keith

 

[Dialectic]

I propose that a separate thread or sub-forum be created to discuss the ceaseless persecution of Finnish audio manufacturers, who have invented everything, received no credit for it, and been completely honest and accurate in their marketing at all times (in contrast to manufacturers of other nationalities, who lie without consequence).

 

[andreasmaaan]

If anyone in Germany has a pair of Kiis I'd be happy to do some pretty thorough measurements.

Or D&D ofc.

 

[Thomas savage]

If anyone in Germany has a pair of Kiis I'd be happy to do some pretty thorough measurements.

Or D&D ofc.

That's a fantastic offer I think it would be great for the forum and indeed both those speakers if that happened.

Like Keith I too wonder why other manufacturers especially those with a more comprehensive knowledge base and diverse staffing like a Pioneer for example have never attempted or at least brought to market a speaker like the Dutch and Dutch or kii.

I'm not sure Bruno would describe himself as an expert speaker designer but then arguably maybe these days you don't need those physical design skills for exotic drivers and enclosures when you have great amplification and software expertise. I always kinda hoped we would see a combination of the very very best in physical engineering meeting the very very best of software and electronic engineering in a pair of speakers.

Cost is a accusation or issue with most high end audio you're always left thinking can't this be built for less. And yes for young companies like kii I guess we are paying for the research and development where as maybe a larger company would keep that cost within house. That said given the crazy world of audio and certainly the insane detached from all reality world of high-end audio these speakers while expensive if considered as I believe they should be as a complete system are competitive on price and maybe you could argue good value.

Hey Keith at this rate you will be back on Bruno's Christmas card list in no time. You may even get a personal invitation round to his house for your own private little fashion show.

 

[svart-hvitt]

What I find somewhat surprising is why other manufacturers haven’t manufactured a Kii/8C type speaker, when they have so many advatages, I suppose they just don’t have the know how!
Keith

This is from an interview with Jorma Salmi (1948-2018), about the Kii design choices:

«There are loudspeakers out there that do the same, such as the much debated Bruno Putzey’s Kii Three, and I ask Salmi what he thinks about it:

“It’s a good compact speaker. But why do it in such a complicated way?”, Salmi ponders. Kii Three is heavily leaning on DSP and active amplification. Gradient’s been studying and implementing radiation control for more than 30 years, but on the level of basic and solid loudspeaker design, not by manipulating the response digitally. The sphere of the 1.4 directs the sound forward 90 degrees (- 6db), and can be tilted vertically to change the angle with respect to the floor.»
Source: https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/defending-the-objective-approach/

Clearly, what Kii do isn’t foreign to experienced speaker designers.

Another excerpt from the same article:

«I do understand Salmi’s concern against the background that over the years, decades even, Gradient has probably suffered from stubbornly never wanting to gain competitiveness edge by swelling the size of their speakers, or by playing with fancy designs and the prestige card, or by setting the price at an unachievable level for laymen just to attract a certain market segment».

So same problem (i.e. «the speaker problem»), different approaches.

 

[Thomas savage]

This is from an interview with Jorma Salmi (1948-2018), about the Kii design choices:

«There are loudspeakers out there that do the same, such as the much debated Bruno Putzey’s Kii Three, and I ask Salmi what he thinks about it:

“It’s a good compact speaker. But why do it in such a complicated way?”, Salmi ponders. Kii Three is heavily leaning on DSP and active amplification. Gradient’s been studying and implementing radiation control for more than 30 years, but on the level of basic and solid loudspeaker design, not by manipulating the response digitally. The sphere of the 1.4 directs the sound forward 90 degrees (- 6db), and can be tilted vertically to change the angle with respect to the floor.»
Source: https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/defending-the-objective-approach/

Clearly, what Kii do isn’t foreign to experienced speaker designers.

Another excerpt from the same article:

«I do understand Salmi’s concern against the background that over the years, decades even, Gradient has probably suffered from stubbornly never wanting to gain competitiveness edge by swelling the size of their speakers, or by playing with fancy designs and the prestige card, or by setting the price at an unachievable level for laymen just to attract a certain market segment».

So same problem (i.e. «the speaker problem»), different approaches.

Do you sing the Finnish national anthem in the shower every morning?

 

[svart-hvitt]

Do you sing the Finnish national anthem in the shower every morning?

Yes, backwards, which takes a lot of practicing

On a serious note: Why should one pretend that Finnish and German speaker designers haven’t explored cardioid designs for decades? Knowing a bit history isn’t backwards, is it? I am amused by those who believe Bill Gates invented DOS and the mouse-screen based interface.

 

[Cosmik]

Kii and DD have shown little interest in acknowledging the history, heritage and legacy - which gives people the impression that they’re dealing with novel concepts instead of refined versions of old and already proven ideas.

This lack of acknowledging history, heritage and legacy is annoying, wouldn’t you agree? Paying homage to previous scientists, researchers and designers is a virtue.

If I were Kii or D&D, I wouldn't go anywhere near it. If it's not a legal requirement, why should you do other people's advertising for them?

If you mention another company in your ad - even if well meaning - there is a finite chance of getting sued because of it. If you don't, that chance drops to zero.

A thoughtless ad campaign that carelessly namedrops another company’s trademark could land you in court.

https://www.smartuplegal.com/learn-center/can-i-use-a-competitors-name-in-advertising/

You might think you are 'paying homage' when in fact you are implying that your speaker supersedes their work. They might have been under the impression that yours was clearly a different, inferior device.

And it just seems a bit sentimental and drippy as well as confusing.

 

[svart-hvitt]

If I were Kii or D&D, I wouldn't go anywhere near it. If it's not a legal requirement, why should you do other people's advertising for them?

If you mention another company in your ad - even if well meaning - there is a finite chance of getting sued because of it. If you don't, that chance drops to zero.

https://www.smartuplegal.com/learn-center/can-i-use-a-competitors-name-in-advertising/

You might think you are 'paying homage' when in fact you are implying that your speaker supersedes their work. They might have been under the impression that yours was clearly a different, inferior device.

And it just seems a bit sentimental and drippy as well as confusing.

@Cosmik ,you wrote:

«If I were Kii or D&D, I wouldn't go anywhere near it. If it's not a legal requirement, why should you do other people's advertising for them?

If you mention another company in your ad - even if well meaning - there is a finite chance of getting sued because of it. If you don't, that chance drops to zero».

This is nonsense. Let me explain.

In a technical paper from 2009 for 8260, Genelec give the following history summary on coaxials:

«The milestones in the development of coaxial drivers can be summarized as follows:
• Altec Lansing presented their famous 604 Duplex coaxial driver in 1941. The tweeter is horn-loaded and the horn pro- trudes from the woofer cone apex. The frequency response is irregular due to horn reflecting sound emitted by the cone and due to the small dimensions of the horn itself.
• Introduced in 1946, the Tannoy Dual Concentric design over- comes some of the problems. The tweeter horn is formed inside an hollow pole piece and the woofer cone is an exten- sion of the tweeter horn. Hence there are no reflections from the horn itself. However, the tweeter response depends on the woofer cone position and the joint between the woofer voice coil and the cone causes diffraction.
• In 1981 Pioneer Electric Corporation introduced a 4-way coaxial flat diaphragm loudspeaker. The diaphragms were made from honeycomb sandwich material. This driver never had any success.
• Tannoy published a paper called “Optimum diaphragm and waveguide geometry for coincident source drive units”. The so-called Tannoy “Tulip” waveguide forms the internal pas- sages for the phase plug and creates a spherical wavefront which matches the apex of the cone. Improved bandwidth and response are the claimed benefits.
• In 1988 KEF introduced the “Compound loudspeaker drive unit”. This design became possible having efficient magnet materials which helped to reduce the overall dimensions of the tweeter magnetic circuit. This design also relies on the woofer cone as a directionality control device for the tweeter radiation. In wideband use the modulation distortion is present and the diffraction problems are pronounced as the dome directivity is small. Typically, diffraction ripples are located between 10...14 kHz depending on the woofer voice coil diameter.
• BMS, a German company, has developed 2-and 3-way coax- ial compression drivers mostly used in sound reinforcement applications.
• The French company Cabasse has manufactured several dif- ferent 2-, 3- and 4-way coaxial designs.
• Recently Pioneer/TAD has developed a coaxial MF/HF driver using Beryllium diaphragms».
Source: https://www.genelec.fi/sites/defaul...itors/8260A/genelec_8260a_technical_paper.pdf

See?

I think it all depends on how versed you are in the academic (scientific) tradition. Or simply common sense, integrity and an understanding of history’s contribution to your current knowledge.

There is an ocean between a used-car salesman’s namedropping and a competent description of a technology’s historical milestones.

 

[Thomas savage]

@Cosmik ,you wrote:

«If I were Kii or D&D, I wouldn't go anywhere near it. If it's not a legal requirement, why should you do other people's advertising for them?

If you mention another company in your ad - even if well meaning - there is a finite chance of getting sued because of it. If you don't, that chance drops to zero».

This is nonsense. Let me explain.

In a technical paper from 2009 for 8260, Genelec give the following history summary on coaxials:

«The milestones in the development of coaxial drivers can be summarized as follows:
• Altec Lansing presented their famous 604 Duplex coaxial driver in 1941. The tweeter is horn-loaded and the horn pro- trudes from the woofer cone apex. The frequency response is irregular due to horn reflecting sound emitted by the cone and due to the small dimensions of the horn itself.
• Introduced in 1946, the Tannoy Dual Concentric design over- comes some of the problems. The tweeter horn is formed inside an hollow pole piece and the woofer cone is an exten- sion of the tweeter horn. Hence there are no reflections from the horn itself. However, the tweeter response depends on the woofer cone position and the joint between the woofer voice coil and the cone causes diffraction.
• In 1981 Pioneer Electric Corporation introduced a 4-way coaxial flat diaphragm loudspeaker. The diaphragms were made from honeycomb sandwich material. This driver never had any success.
• Tannoy published a paper called “Optimum diaphragm and waveguide geometry for coincident source drive units”. The so-called Tannoy “Tulip” waveguide forms the internal pas- sages for the phase plug and creates a spherical wavefront which matches the apex of the cone. Improved bandwidth and response are the claimed benefits.
• In 1988 KEF introduced the “Compound loudspeaker drive unit”. This design became possible having efficient magnet materials which helped to reduce the overall dimensions of the tweeter magnetic circuit. This design also relies on the woofer cone as a directionality control device for the tweeter radiation. In wideband use the modulation distortion is present and the diffraction problems are pronounced as the dome directivity is small. Typically, diffraction ripples are located between 10...14 kHz depending on the woofer voice coil diameter.
• BMS, a German company, has developed 2-and 3-way coax- ial compression drivers mostly used in sound reinforcement applications.
• The French company Cabasse has manufactured several dif- ferent 2-, 3- and 4-way coaxial designs.
• Recently Pioneer/TAD has developed a coaxial MF/HF driver using Beryllium diaphragms».
Source: https://www.genelec.fi/sites/defaul...itors/8260A/genelec_8260a_technical_paper.pdf

See?

I think it all depends on how versed you are in the academic (scientific) tradition. Or simply common sense, integrity and an understanding of history’s contribution to your current knowledge.

There is an ocean between a used-car salesman’s namedropping and a competent description of a technology’s historical milestones.

Have just upgraded Keith to used car salesman status?

 

[SIY]

“It’s a good compact speaker. But why do it in such a complicated way?”, Salmi ponders. Kii Three is heavily leaning on DSP and active amplification.

DSP and active are exactly the opposite of complicated.