Musician Knight I (V2) Speaker Review

[Maiky76]

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 3.9
With Sub: 6.0

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Not flat at all
• Significant directivity issue (no waveguide)
• HF ragged
• Nice LF extension
• Generally lacking in the engineering department at the price, old school acoustic design

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/15deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range. Explanation here.

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable (here).
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• One can model the EQ with Vituixcad by using the DSP "Generic" setting with 96000Hz sampling rate.

Score no EQ: 3.9
With Sub: 6.0

Score EQ LW: 5.8
with sub: 7.7

Score EQ Score: 6.4
with sub: 8.3

Musician Audio Knight I V2 APO LW EQ 96000Hz
April222026-110822

Preamp: -2.50 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 45.8 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.22
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 397.2 Hz Gain 1.40 dB Q 3.64
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 544.3 Hz Gain -1.90 dB Q 1.63
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2009.6 Hz Gain -3.45 dB Q 1.54
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4651.2 Hz Gain -1.95 dB Q 2.07
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9089.5 Hz Gain -1.41 dB Q 5.18
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 12786.8 Hz Gain 2.96 dB Q 2.60
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 15773.2 Hz Gain -3.37 dB Q 5.87

Musician Audio Knight I V2 APO Score EQ 96000Hz
April222026-110822

Preamp: -2.50 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 45.8 Hz Gain 0.00 dB Q 1.22
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 400.9 Hz Gain 1.47 dB Q 2.93
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 543.8 Hz Gain -2.12 dB Q 1.37
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2172.9 Hz Gain -3.64 dB Q 1.20
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4611.1 Hz Gain -2.60 dB Q 1.44
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 9147.4 Hz Gain -2.06 dB Q 3.76
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 12901.4 Hz Gain 2.43 dB Q 2.53
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 15858.5 Hz Gain -4.19 dB Q 4.73

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
Some improvements?

 

[phoenixdogfan]

I suppose Birdseye Maple can really look great. Avalon offered it as a finish on their top of the line Eidolon a few years back and it was stunningly beautiful. But this thing? No. Same color as a bowling alley. Course it has nicer faux inclusions, but still...

And the performance? These are $4k pr.? Perhaps if anyone really yearns for a speaker finished in "Dick Webber Yellow" like that, they should just buy a pair of Asci C6bs, and pay $50 for a veneering kit on Amazon and go to town with their Proctor Silex ironing that "Fine French Furniture" look right on.

As always, a great review Amir. Thank you for this.

 

[kemmler3D]

It's a shame to have such mediocre results from such a nice looking speaker. But the response looks so colored they must have used it to stain the wood.

These days, you have to give the benefit of the doubt and assume such a response is intentional. I don't think it would sound broken-level bad, but luck will be involved in getting good sound from this thing. It would enhance certain recordings, probably wreck others.

There are plenty of much better DIY 2-way speakers out there, including some documented on this site. Either they did this on purpose or it's really a total grab bag DILLIGAF design.

 

[Hiten]

Thanks for the review

And due to lack of a waveguide, there is directivity mismatch between the woofer and tweeter. We see the impact of that in early window reflections

A waveguide would have prevented them from the current surface finish.

 

[dfuller]

Lacking baffle step correction is honestly a bit silly at this price point. That on top of the truly dire off axis... This seems to behave rather like a worse version of the ATC SCM19/20. That, at least, has an attempt to match directivity with that grafted-on mid dome/dustcap.

Compare that to this one...

A waveguide would have prevented them from the current surface finish.

Nah. You just mount one in the tweeter route.

 

[Hiten]

The tweeter looks quite big. Or is it the face plate ?

 

[dfuller]

The tweeter looks quite big. Or is it the face plate ?

Just the faceplate. Looks like a typical 1" tweeter to me.

 

[amirm]

These are $4k pr.?

No, the $1,900 is for a pair. I added a note to the review.

 

[amirm]

Bruh, really? Com'on bro, you keep this up, I just might have to vote you as Time magazine' man with the most awful taste of the year award.

I judge it as a woodworker where birdseye and tiger maple are highly prized. Granted, they are usually clear finished, not with this yellow hue. What fellow tradesmen respect may not be what others do....

 

[ObjectiveSubjectivist]

The finish may be of high quality, but that particular one is pretty ugly to my eye.

Hard to disagree

 

[IngMishael]

The finish may be of high quality, but that particular one is pretty ugly to my eye.

thank the audio gods. Thought I was going crazy. looks gaudy and not pleasing to my eyes at all. and performance doesn't help its case

 

[GD Fan]

That, ahem, color scheme looks like someone forgot to flush.

 

[Endibol]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Musician Audio Knight I (V2) speaker. It was sent to me by Aoshida Audio and costs US $1,900 including shipping and "taxes." (for a pair)
View attachment 526834
The cabinet construction and look & feel is a step above any speaker I have tested. We are talking Birdseye maple finish with many coats of varnish rivaling and matching high end furniture! Not only that, it feels quite substantial and solid. It is a huge number of steps above any large production speaker of its kind.

While I have not heard of the brand before, it seems it is a very popular brand in China. They produce both electronics and speaker. Here are the specs:

View attachment 526835

The woofer is from Seas and soft dome tweeter has some 20 layers of fabric (from memory).

Musician Knight 1 V2 Speaker Measurements
Our anechoic frequency response unfortunately shows non-flat on axis response and directivity error:
View attachment 526836
It seems there is no baffle compensation. And due to lack of a waveguide, there is directivity mismatch between the woofer and tweeter. We see the impact of that in early window reflections:
View attachment 526837

Resulting in a variable predicted in-room response:
View attachment 526838

Results will likely be very room dependent. Absorption of early reflections may do it some good although on axis response is still colored.

Near-field driver response shows a number of typical resonances and tweeter's uneven response:
View attachment 526839

We can see those resonances in waterfall display as well:
View attachment 526840

Directivity errors are quite a bit more visible in our specific plots:
View attachment 526841
View attachment 526842

View attachment 526843

Wider response, an "advantage" of lack of tweeter directivity control, will provide somewhat more spacious sound. But again, at the expense of more colorations.

Distortion is under control at 86 dBSPL but gets out of hand at 96 dBSPL:
View attachment 526844
View attachment 526845
We could accept the bass distortion but wish the tweeter was not there.

Zooming in bass:

View attachment 526846

If you are going to play very loud, best to cross it over pretty high with a subwoofer. On the other hand, if playing at low levels, it can go as deep as 40 Hz.

Impedance almost matches the spec:
View attachment 526847

Finally, step response looks rather clean:
View attachment 526848

I am still recovering from being sick. My ears are plugged so don't want to try to listen. I am sure you can imagine the colorations from the measurements.

Conclusions
Knight 1 (V2) brings impeccable aesthetics and construction to the table, justifying its cost. It is high-end furniture grade that should get positive reception from others in the households. Alas, it does not deliver technically. There are a lot of colorations. I hope the company works on a Version 3 to reduce these errors, and with it, provide a unique combination of good looks and performance.

----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

@amirm Glad that you are (almost) back from illness. I missed your reviews.

 

[daniboun]

Regarding the look, you either like it or you don't... I'm a musician and I've collected quite a few snare drums. The Birdseye maple finish is generally used on guitars and snare drums...
Here's a summary of the difference between the V1 and V2 (attached).

BTW Legacy Audio specializes in this type of finish as well

PS : Thanks @amirm for this review. This is exactly what this type of test is for: to avoid this kind of nonsense : https://soundnews.net/speakers/passive-speakers/musician-audio-knight-1-loudspeaker-review/

 

[Sokel]

Is this the same company who showed a 2 million euro monstrosity at Munich?

Hard pass obviously for this one.

Thanks Amir!

 

[Waxx]

it's a basic good oldskool bookshelf. To today standards certainly not technical perfect but quiet ok. It does not justify the price altough, even with that finish. But it's not a bad speaker neighter i would say. I can easely make a pair diy for half the price altough, even with the fact i pay much higher prices than a company for parts. Parts look also like OEM variations of a Seas woofer and a Monacor tweeter, nothing special actually, and i can easely find cheap equivalents for that...

 

[Talisman]

The essence of this product could be summarized in three points:
- It's expensive
- It's ugly
- It has mediocre performance

 

[Postlan]

These kinds of flashy veneer finishes try so hard to loudly proclaim themselves as luxury items that they end up feeling downright kitsch.

 

[thewas]

- How much directivity mismatch should it have?

- Yes.

 

[DSJR]

it's a basic good oldskool bookshelf. To today standards certainly not technical perfect but quiet ok. It does not justify the price altough, even with that finish.

I was going to suggest the same thing - 1980s close-to-wall mid-end stand mount that back then would have been around £300 - £500pr, so the next step up from popular Missions and KEFs over here...

Thing is, back in the late 90s or so, Quad introduced some far eastern made 'conventional' speakers and their '11L' model at £320pr in a similar colour 'Birdseye Maple' gloss finish. Sound was slightly 'loudness switch/slightly under-damped' with slightly warm mid-bass and very slightly 'glossy' top end and they were very positively reviewed by the main audio-consumer rag of the time and sold well. I was reliably informed that the landed cost of these Chinese made speakers was a small fraction of the retail price, so if that was true, then perhaps unlikely that these as reviewed here would be silly-money to manufacture and present in that finish?