The old MK and KK debate

[duaplex]

Has anybody heard the new Ken Kreisel Quattro (Q125) series and the new MK S300? I am curious to know whether the KK can hold its weight against the MK S300, which is a step up in class to the S150, which the Q125 is out to rival? While that seem's fairly straight forward an answer, I'm not sure it is entirely.

I will be going for a demo in April to have a listen to the KK, but it has come down to these two for me after having a demo of the PMC fact range and B&W diamond range

 

[BenLaw]

I may have missed it, but what were your thoughts on the PMC and B&W?

 

[duaplex]

Not at all, I have not shared those yet. But here goes

PMC Test

PMC Fact 12 fronts
PMC Fact 3 Center
PMC Fact 8 rears
PMC Sub SB 100

This system was great in detail, however I found the sub to be underwhelming. To the point where I question if it was even on in my mind. However take nothing away from this system, it is fantastic and there were no holes in the sound. For stereo the Fact 12 is something else and really delivers on making you feel the artist is in the room with you, the bass drivers have the edge over its smaller brother the Fact 8 and it is so conrolled and balanced.

Onto Fact 8 - Not as detailed, a very shrill piercing sound at the high end and lacking in bass (not surprising) It also doesn't envelop you in sound and I could clearly hear the holes in the audio. Where the missle flew over my should and hit a transformer, For a split second the missle drops out and reappears at the front as it passes by. I was not impressed and the S150 is easily a better system at a similar price point.

I didnt even test out the B&W 804D for movies and here is why.... I first heard this in stereo and it completely lacks control in Bass. Slap on enter sandman by Metallica and suddenly the deep bass causes the drive unit to throb out of distortion, awful! So I stopped as I came to the conclusion that the Fact 8 sounded better and I found that to be lacking.

Bottom line, I find the PMC range too warm, the MK range is more clinical in presentation and this is why I prefer them so far. The S300 is simply another level, but I accept I heard that in a treated room, purpose built, whereas I heard the PMC fact 12 speakers in a normal untreated room with leakage of sound. I can only assume they would sound excellent in a proper room. However I compared them to the S150 that was also in an untreated room and they just did not measure up for detail and clinical presentation (fact 8 ).

Here is the funny part The s150 was connected to an Integra amp, same class as the Lx87 and Yamaha 3030. Yesterday the Processor (Anthem) and power amp (Bryston( were referance level costing 20k!!

Hope that helps, i should have created a seperate thread!

 

[BenLaw]

Thanks for the reply, and sorry for distracting from the point of the thread. I personally dislike the PMC + Bryston sound and agree with you about B&W bass. I've never heard KK speakers but it sounds like they may have a similar philosophy to my ATC speakers.

 

[duaplex]

Now ATC is a brand I have not tried, but heard about too. Maybe that can be tested this saturday on my visit to Hifix.

Glad I'm not the only one with the PMC

 

[skippy]

Just a snippet, they ain't cheap...

http://canadahifi.com/mk-sound-s300-series-speakers/

 

[Frank Harvey]

The second paragraph is a marketing department's dream! Some bold claims there...

Oh, and the S150 was designed and built by "Miller & Kreisel" since 1995 until 2007 - it was then built by MK Sound from around 2008.

 

[duaplex]

David - I see your point about floor stands not being needed!

I should be clear I am referring to the s150 by MK, not the originals

 

[duaplex]

The second paragraph is a marketing department's dream! Some bold claims there...

Oh, and the S150 was designed and built by "Miller & Kreisel" since 1995 until 2007 - it was then built by MK Sound from around 2008.

oh sorry the article, I thought you meant what I said above, double

 

[duaplex]

Just a snippet, they ain't cheap...

http://canadahifi.com/mk-sound-s300-series-speakers/

Don't you love the jargon sometimes "holographic sound" brilliant :rofl:

They are impressive and worth a listen. Now, can the Quattro rival them, this remains to be seen! I'm hoping they do.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Well I would expect the S300s to be better considering one of them costs the same as the whole Quattro front three!

 

[ellisdj]

Reading your initial post shows the importance of room acoustic treatment

An LX83 is good i have had one but it pales in.the shadow of a bryston power amp. There is no comparison

And there be the truth - a bad room kills a good system.

It also shows that eq does not work in comparison to proper room treatments - laws of physics.

I think you like the sound the room the mks were in which is not surprising

 

[ellisdj]

Holographic sound is another way of describing transparency - not ott if the speakers do it - lots of good ones do

 

[bigboss]

Holographic image is a 3D picture. How can holographic sound mean transparency? I think they mean 3D sound (whatever that means).

 

[BenLaw]

Reading your initial post shows the importance of room acoustic treatment

An LX83 is good i have had one but it pales in.the shadow of a bryston power amp. There is no comparison

And there be the truth - a bad room kills a good system.

It also shows that eq does not work in comparison to proper room treatments - laws of physics.

I think you like the sound the room the mks were in which is not surprising

I don't disagree that room treatment is extremely important but given that the systems had different speakers, amps and room there isn't enough to go on to decide the preference was solely down to the room as you suggest. IME the sort of preference expressed is more likely to be down to speaker presentation, albeit as you say one system was given a greater opportunity to shine.

 

[BenLaw]

Holographic image is a 3D picture. How can holographic sound mean transparency? I think they mean 3D sound (whatever that means).

It is used (rightly or wrongly) to mean the ability to pick out instruments and sounds in three dimensions. More accurately, it's only two dimensions but it's meant to distinguish between only being able to pick out sounds along a horizontal line between speakers. The analogy is a flat picture which appears to have a dimension of depth. However, while the term means something in stereo (because that is flat) it seems to be a bit meaningless with multi channel as the speakers have width and depth anyway, so something would be very wrong if it wasn't 'holographic'.

 

[ellisdj]

Proper transparent speakers create a 3D image of the sound being played back. Its is holographic in its presentation

I have only properly heard this once off the MA PL300's - I have been trying to get as close to this as possible since.

This was in a treated room.

My point is - if the room isnt treated then you are not hearing the system at all at its best - not just the speakers the amplification as well. And not near its best.

Not just that the system in the treated room will sound miles better - becuase the room is miles better. This would be most notable in the bass - and getting the bass absorbed out the way allows the rest to come through properly as well.

I am not saying anything to do with the ops preference however this is such an important factor to consider.

I would also consider the platinums in your choice of speakers - owning the GX - having heard the PL300's they are excellent speakers - with the type of sound character you say you like. The GX's are rich in presentation I find. The PL's take that to the next level with all out transparency.

If you treat the room properly you will get that sound which is addictive

 

[ellisdj]

AV systems image much better as well in the right environment

Just having more speakers around you puts sound eminating from that part of the room - that can create the illusion of a full sound field but that doesnt mean you are hearing all your are supposed to be, in the best way possible - properly holographic.

In fact AV systems require a lot more work into the acoustics of the room to achieve this as there are more speakers to factor in - the more speakers the more treatment needs implementing

 

[Frank Harvey]

I think the best way to audition a system is in 5.1 mode - if it can create a seamless soundfield with just five speakers, then you know you have a well designed speaker in this regard.

 

[duaplex]

I agree, start with 5.1 and go from there.