PSI A21-M Monitor Review

[Beershaun]

I marked it fine based on price. It's well engineered. At $7k a pair you have a bunch of competition that can get louder and fill a room without distortion including amplification in the price.

 

[VSem]

I think many people have PSI Audio A17-M speakers. I'd be very interested in reading a review of these speakers as well.

 

[Martijn W]

You can use these at 1 or 1,5m distance, but they sound much more cohesive when taking > 2 meters distance.

These are very high Grade monitors.
Not to be confused with lower quality products from Genelec or Neumann for example.

 

[Martijn W]

I think many people have PSI Audio A17-M speakers. I'd be very interested in reading a review of these speakers as well.

I owned a21-m’s (pre-latest version) and currently own a17’s (latest version) with a225 sub (apart from my main Geithain 4-way cardioid system).

I use the psi at very short distance. Imo mythe a17 is the better nearfield. The a21 is the better midfield.

21 has more headroom, larger sound and more spacious low-end. It may sound distortion at first but in mixing you can hear everything very clearly.

The midrange sounds a bit different.
Both very accurate in high and mid.
A21 strangely sounds the most accurate at its crossover frequency.
Both are extremely transparant and show transients details very clearly,

bass is very accurate on both.

The 21 s not extending much deeper but sounds very different in the low end, a17 is actually very accurate and low distortion but starts too sound congested quickly at higher volumes.

21 sounds more spacious and had much more power.

that ‘spacious baas’ is actually extremely accurate.

Only…. Not full range. So for mastering you Will miss the lowest audible frequenties (when not high pass filtered out).

 

[Purité Audio]

You can use these at 1 or 1,5m distance, but they sound much more cohesive when taking > 2 meters distance.

These are very high Grade monitors.
Not to be confused with lower quality products from Genelec or Neumann for example.

In which way are they ‘higher grade’ they don’t measure as well as Genelec or Neumann which in my book makes them ‘lower grade’.
Keith

 

[Martijn W]

In which way are they ‘higher grade’ they don’t measure as well as Genelec or Neumann which in my book makes them ‘lower grade’.
Keith

Well I used different models of Genelec Neumann and PSI monitors throughout the years in many different rooms and for me it is perfectly clear that PSI products are of higher quality grade.

But which solution is best for any specific situation is subjective as it differs per person and even per application (e.g. room/setup).

My advies would be:
Use measurements and other people’s opinions as indications, not as ‘true’ for any specific situation.

Monitoring solutions are very personal. Use in real life is the only way to find out what works for you..

 

[Purité Audio]

Objectively and in terms of measurement not ‘higher grade’ but you prefer them, thats fine.
Keith

 

[Martijn W]

yes, i prefer higher quality monitors

edit: but seriously. I had PSI A21 and Neumann KH 310 together (and used them both in different rooms) for months.
The PSI is obvious and clearly a better monitor.
The difference is not small.

How i remember the Neumann KH 310 is that it is a fine monitor, but compared to the PSI A21 it sounds veiled in the midrange and highs sound rather artificial and seem to lack resolution. The low-end of the Neumann is very dry and accurate though. The PSI has more 'spacious' sounding low-end. Very different, both very good imo.


..but if you want to compare graphs and base your opinion on that, that's fine.

 

[Purité Audio]

I had PSI A25 here a compared them directly to D&D 8Cs the PSIs were nothing special, objectively and in terms of measurement the 8Cs were the superior design and this was reflected in their respective sound quality.
Keith

 

[Blockader]

yes, i prefer higher quality monitors

edit: but seriously. I had PSI A21 and Neumann KH 310 together (and used them both in different rooms) for months.
The PSI is obvious and clearly a better monitor.
The difference is not small.

How i remember the Neumann KH 310 is that it is a fine monitor, but compared to the PSI A21 it sounds veiled in the midrange and highs sound rather artificial and seem to lack resolution. The low-end of the Neumann is very dry and accurate though. The PSI has more 'spacious' sounding low-end. Very different, both very good imo.


..but if you want to compare graphs and base your opinion on that, that's fine.

How do you know the recording didn't actually have veiled mids, and that the PSI wasn't adding coloration you happened to like? On a recording that already has full mids, that same coloration would push them past neutral which is the opposite of what a monitor is for. "Sounds better" and "is more accurate" aren't the same claim.

Nevertheless, PSI's are great monitors. However, KH 310 is lacking nothing compared to PSI's.

 

[Exprymer]

In terms of electronic components I'm sure that PSIs are a clear winner against pretty much any other monitor. All the best op-amps and capacitors are there, they don't cut costs in this area. It's one of the reasons they cost more. Any other bigger brand selling a lot more products cannot keep up with this kind of philosophy and end up using cheaper components here and there.

In terms of objective data of course there are a couple of monitors that might surpass it in some aspects, but they remain very competitive against the top.

 

[DatSpeakerTho]

yes, i prefer higher quality monitors

edit: but seriously. I had PSI A21 and Neumann KH 310 together (and used them both in different rooms) for months.
The PSI is obvious and clearly a better monitor.
The difference is not small.

How i remember the Neumann KH 310 is that it is a fine monitor, but compared to the PSI A21 it sounds veiled in the midrange and highs sound rather artificial and seem to lack resolution. The low-end of the Neumann is very dry and accurate though. The PSI has more 'spacious' sounding low-end. Very different, both very good imo.


..but if you want to compare graphs and base your opinion on that, that's fine.

Gearspace sent you didnt they?

 

[URS]

PSI A17-M

I’m adding a few comments to this PSI thread, as I’m a very happy owner of a pair of the little A17-M for a few weeks now.

I was already familiar with PSI’s ‘bigger models’ from the ‘Klangschloss’ (a small annual Swiss HIFI fair) in Greifensee near Zürich – partly from the live concerts and the recordings that were played back immediately afterwards through PSI monitors, but also from earlier demonstrations in the Show Room. So I had a rough idea of what to expect in terms of sound quality.

But what I was now able to hear from these ‘small’ desktop monitors was genuinely surprising and outstanding. I use the PSI as ‘very’ near-field monitors (listening distance is less than 1 metre !), and so it’s probably this new PSI-tweeter in particular that’s the ‘icing on the cake’. The bass is superb too, and can also be adjusted to suit individual listening situations.

Note: I work as a sort of “part-time & hobby archivist” and am often busy digitising very old shellac records, some of which are, in terms of sound quality, rather ‘borderline’ !!

I can hardly imagine that any greater musical enjoyment is possible in the specific ‘work-like’ listening situation described above: the A17-M speakers strike just the right balance between detail and transparency, coupled with sheer musical delight. This applies, of course, even more so to music of a ‘higher quality’…

For me, these A17-Ms are probably also the largest possible speaker size that I can mount directly next to my PC monitor and on my desk.

Obviously, anyone who can accommodate larger models has even more options available to them.

Best regards,
Urs

 

[staticV3]

I can hardly imagine that any greater musical enjoyment is possible

Enjoyment is subjective, but greater transparency is certainly possible, and for half the price at that:

 

[Exprymer]

It's important to have in mind that the measurements here may not reflect what was measured at the factory because the acoustic axis used for this dataset is different from the specified on the datasheet. The distortion graphs are still reliable, but the on-axis and step response graphs are very likely worse than what the company calibrated.

 

[Rettica]

Enjoyment is subjective, but greater transparency is certainly possible, and for half the price at that:

I recently switched to PSI a-17m from Focal Solo6 ST6 which has far less distortion on paper. Does it sound more transparent? Far from it, PSI are ten times cleaner, more focused and dynamic. So good luck looking at your graphs

 

[URS]

Aren’t I lucky that I didn’t look at any graphs beforehand ?

Regards
Urs

PS: The graphs shown above: Were there from the previous PSI series or are they very new ?
PSI changed the tweeters on all (most ?) of their models. As I understand, the A17-M were the latest ones with this new tweeter.
Furthermore: For my taste the full-analogue system used by PSI I much prefer to DSP or such.