"The secret of big speakers"

[Wombat]

Taken to the extreme, in an anechoic chamber(no room interaction), it doesn't appear to sound better to many.

 

[Cosmik]

Taken to the extreme, in an anechoic chamber(no room interaction), it doesn't appear to sound better to many. View attachment 15521

Yes, it's all about getting the right amount of interaction with the room. Omni and it sounds too diffuse; a directional 'beam' of sound and it sounds too dry.

The layman knows they quite like the sound of a conventional speaker in a room. The Kii maintains the best part of the sound of the conventional speaker but cleans up the messiness in the bass. How do you market that to the customer? By saying that it sounds like a conventional speaker but bigger. A perfectly reasonable thing to claim IMO.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I am genuinely nonplussed by your hostility to the Kii marketing here. They haven't claimed anything that isn't true about their own product.

The Kii is small but sounds like a big speaker because of one reason: it maintains uniform dispersion to a lower frequency than a small speaker. The 'problem' is that it simulates a conventional speaker that is so big it doesn't actually exist. How do you explain this to potential customers?

You seem fixated on the idea that they are misleadingly claiming that a conventional larger speaker controls the bass better than a small speaker but all this means is that they have credited a conventional speaker with an advantage that is unwarranted to any great extent - a large conventional speaker does control the bass better than a small speaker, just not by very much.

Consider: you have created a small speaker that does two things:
(a) it improves dispersion in the mid range to match that of a large conventional speaker
(b) it improves control of the bass to match that of a huge conventional speaker
How are you going to explain this to potential customers? In two separate stages, or a single unified message?

I don't mind the Kii approach - and I actually feel as though I learned something from it with their little animation.

As an aside, I find something else fascinating. The Kii actually does something real that has not been done before, that is objectively measurable. The marketing doesn't use the flowery language of standard audiophilia, nor does it concentrate on the 'easy stuff' that, say, Magico would go on about - a chassis made of aluminium designed with CAD (yawn) - or Wilson and their speaker whose time alignment is achieved by sliding boxes forward and backwards and tightening wing nuts. But what is it that you find outrageous? A company that has a slight difficulty in explaining to their customers just how advanced their technology is, and conflates 'humongous' with 'big'. In doing so, they don't disadvantage any other company (D&D aren't disadvantaged by it) and in fact it could be argued that they flatter the sellers of conventional big speakers.

Ah well... I guess this is fortunately such a trivial point that there's no need for us to agree on it

 

[svart-hvitt]

I am genuinely nonplussed by your hostility to the Kii marketing here. They haven't claimed anything that isn't true about their own product.

The Kii is small but sounds like a big speaker because of one reason: it maintains uniform dispersion to a lower frequency than a small speaker. The 'problem' is that it simulates a conventional speaker that is so big it doesn't actually exist. How do you explain this to potential customers?

You seem fixated on the idea that they are misleadingly claiming that a conventional larger speaker controls the bass better than a small speaker but all this means is that they have credited a conventional speaker with an advantage that is unwarranted to any great extent - a large conventional speaker does control the bass better than a small speaker, just not by very much.

Consider: you have created a small speaker that does two things:
(a) it improves dispersion in the mid range to match that of a large conventional speaker
(b) it improves control of the bass to match that of a huge conventional speaker
How are you going to explain this to potential customers? In two separate stages, or a single unified message?

I don't mind the Kii approach - and I actually feel as though I learned something from it with their little animation.

As an aside, I find something else fascinating. The Kii actually does something real that has not been done before, that is objectively measurable. The marketing doesn't use the flowery language of standard audiophilia, nor does it concentrate on the 'easy stuff' that, say, Magico would go on about - a chassis made of aluminium designed with CAD (yawn) - or Wilson and their speaker whose time alignment is achieved by sliding boxes forward and backwards and tightening wing nuts. But what is it that you find outrageous? A company that has a slight difficulty in explaining to their customers just how advanced their technology is, and conflates 'humongous' with 'big'. In doing so, they don't disadvantage any other company (D&D aren't disadvantaged by it) and in fact it could be argued that they flatter the sellers of conventional big speakers.

@Cosmik the marketing that @andreasmaaan pointed to comes on top of Kii claiming specifications that seem to come from simulations:

1) Low-frequency output was suddenly cut by 10 dB from 20 to 30 dB.
2) The frequency response error is specified as +/- 0.5 dB with no measurements to support that small an error.

Then they release a BXT low frequency module which triples the size of the original Kii3.

On the «innovations» of Kii, late Jorma Salmi, founder of Gradient who introduced passive cardioid technology in the mid 1990s, said not long ago:

«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».
Source: https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/defending-the-objective-approach/

 

[Cosmik]

@Cosmik the marketing that @andreasmaaan pointed to comes on top of Kii claiming specifications that seem to come from simulations:

1) Low-frequency output was suddenly cut by 10 dB from 20 to 30 dB.
2) The frequency response error is specified as +/- 0.5 dB with no measurements to support that small an error.

Then they release a BXT low frequency module which triples the size of the original Kii3.

On the «innovations» of Kii, late Jorma Salmi, founder of Gradient who introduced passive cardioid technology in the mid 1990s, said not long ago:

«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».
Source: https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/defending-the-objective-approach/

Thanks for the link.

(1) It may be that the Kii's low frequency output can sustain a higher level for short bursts but then protection kicks in. Might they have decided to give the latter figure rather than the former, or that they have had to make the protection more conservative..?
(2) As discussed in a previous thread, if you don't move the microphone you can calibrate a DSP speaker to any arbitrary flatness you like. If they had claimed +/- 0.01dB I wouldn't have doubted them, but would have assumed that they have a very quiet room and were doing a lot of averaging.

What do you think is complicated about the Kii? It has a lot of transistors in it, but its behaviour is very simple. Passive/acoustic speakers don't have much in them, but their behaviour is very complicated. I know which I would choose.

(I have to stress I am not a Kii sales representative. Or D&D. I haven't even heard either of them. But I just get a kick out of a practical reality matching the theory for once. These new speakers are sweeping away a lot of the old audiophile folklore and that's very refreshing).

 

[oivavoi]

@Cosmik the marketing that @andreasmaaan pointed to comes on top of Kii claiming specifications that seem to come from simulations:

1) Low-frequency output was suddenly cut by 10 dB from 20 to 30 dB.
2) The frequency response error is specified as +/- 0.5 dB with no measurements to support that small an error.

Then they release a BXT low frequency module which triples the size of the original Kii3.

On the «innovations» of Kii, late Jorma Salmi, founder of Gradient who introduced passive cardioid technology in the mid 1990s, said not long ago:

«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».
Source: https://www.inner-magazines.com/audiophilia/defending-the-objective-approach/

Those new Gradient speakers look seriously cool. Like having a mini R2D2 making music in the home. Seems like excellent acoustic engineering as well! But why do they insist on making them passive? They already made the Revolutions active, so I don’t understand why they take a step back to passive with this one.

 

[andreasmaaan]

«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».

Why not do it by manipulating the response digitally?

 

[oivavoi]

Why not do it by manipulating the response digitally?

Isn’t there always a danger that intrusive digital prosessing creates artifacts? My understanding is that both Dutch & Dutch and Grimm Audio think that one should get as much as possible right with the acoustic design, first, and then do the rest digitally as icing on the cake.

 

[Soniclife]

2) The frequency response error is specified as +/- 0.5 dB with no measurements to support that small an error.

From their website.

Frequency response: ± 0,5dB - 25 kHz, 20Hz -6dB (*)
(*) IEC60268-5 Paragraphe 20.6

Does that clarify it?

 

[svart-hvitt]

From their website.

Frequency response: ± 0,5dB - 25 kHz, 20Hz -6dB (*)
(*) IEC60268-5 Paragraphe 20.6

Does that clarify it?

You linked to an international standard for speakers, not measurements of a specific monitor.

 

[svart-hvitt]

Isn’t there always a danger that intrusive digital prosessing creates artifacts? My understanding is that both Dutch & Dutch and Grimm Audio think that one should get as much as possible right with the acoustic design, first, and then do the rest digitally as icing on the cake.

I think that’s what one of the things that separates designers and their philosophies. Some prefer to make as much a possible in «hardware», others are more «software» oriented. For DSP speakers, one may check out their latency to get an idea of how much they tilt in either direction?

 

[Cosmik]

I think that’s what one of the things that separates designers and their philosophies.

Or skills. When someone protests against some new advance it *might* be because they haven't a clue how to do it themselves.

 

[Purité Audio]

I like the look of the new Gradients , I might try and get a pair, cardioid in the midrange , perhaps there will be an active version?
I tried the Geithains ( bass cardioid) they weren’t bad but the mids were congested compared to Kii/8C.
Keith

 

[svart-hvitt]

Or skills. When someone protests against some new advance it *might* be because they haven't a clue how to do it themselves.

Agree, partly. Skills in «SW» is not always the same as «HW» skills. However, some have both. Which is a more optimal situation.

Kii have, needless (?) to say, solid marketing skill, cfr. BP’s Mola Mola venture featuring $10k+ DACs.

 

[Purité Audio]

Mola-Mola is Hypex, not sure if Bruno is still involved.
Kiis are good though looking forward to the BXT. Kii with and Kiis without should be interesting , in the rooms I have measured the Kiis in they are ‘flat’ at between 22-25Hz .
Keih

 

[andreasmaaan]

Isn’t there always a danger that intrusive digital prosessing creates artifacts? My understanding is that both Dutch & Dutch and Grimm Audio think that one should get as much as possible right with the acoustic design, first, and then do the rest digitally as icing on the cake.

Of course I agree that one should get as much right possible with the acoustic design But I'm not sure I agree with the rest. What digital artefacts are we talking about, for example?

 

[DonH56]

Unlike intrusive analog processing that adds its own set of artifacts, many much worse than digital...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Unlike intrusive analog processing that adds its own set of artifacts, many much worse than digital...

One obvious artefact of certain digital processes is latency

In some applications, easily noticed.

Apart from that, a simple bypass button would reveal the potential win or loss of additional digital processing.

And in the end, KISS always wins, doesn’t it

 

[DonH56]

One obvious artefact of certain digital processes is latency

In some applications, easily noticed.

Apart from that, a simple bypass button would reveal the potential win or loss of additional digital processing.

And in the end, KISS always wins, doesn’t it

Analog circuits have latency, too... But rarely do you find thousands of taps in an analog filter. So the analog filter has lower latency (group delay), but also lower out-of-band rejection, and slower roll-off so imaging artifacts are worse. And if it's active it adds more noise and distortion, etc. There are compromises and trades in both and to somehow think all analog or all digital designs are somehow better or worse is mistaken IME/IMO. There always seems to be this "simpler is better" theme of longing for the good old days when everything was perfect. Their memory differs from mine a bit. And my grandmother was fond of saying that those who long for the good old days did not have to live through them.

KISS can be overused. Building stable high-order analog filters with practical component values and that do not drift over time and temp is hard. Sometimes a more complex design is the better solution. A guy I knew a bit long ago (Bob Pease) had a story about dealing with quality and failure analysis folk who were pushing for fewer components as more reliable. They had curves and equations to prove it. So Bob took out the fuses and overvoltage/overcurrent features in his breadboard and let it smoke when he shorted the output. He had a bold way of making his point...

 

[svart-hvitt]

Analog circuits have latency, too... But rarely do you find thousands of taps in an analog filter. So the analog filter has lower latency (group delay), but also lower out-of-band rejection, and slower roll-off so imaging artifacts are worse. And if it's active it adds more noise and distortion, etc. There are compromises and trades in both and to somehow think all analog or all digital designs are somehow better or worse is mistaken IME/IMO. There always seems to be this "simpler is better" theme of longing for the good old days when everything was perfect. Their memory differs from mine a bit. And my grandmother was fond of saying that those who long for the good old days did not have to live through them.

KISS can be overused. Building stable high-order analog filters with practical component values and that do not drift over time and temp is hard. Sometimes a more complex design is the better solution. A guy I knew a bit long ago (Bob Pease) had a story about dealing with quality and failure analysis folk who were pushing for fewer components as more reliable. They had curves and equations to prove it. So Bob took out the fuses and overvoltage/overcurrent features in his breadboard and let it smoke when he shorted the output. He had a bold way of making his point...

I guess it shows that KISS and economics are not the same thing

KISS was initially a term in the military, where - if you disregard the military complex issue of modern times - useability and serviceability in the field were paramount.

As simple as possible, but not simpler, seems to be another way of thinking about it.