That sounds genius! I was ready to pounce on King’s Audio for their wimpy wall wart when perhaps I should have been congratulating them. Nevertheless, I put it aside in favor of the Royal Power Supply from VAC (Valve Amplification Company), which I strongly suggest owners need to secure to take the King III to its fruition. The saving grace is that when using the Royal Power Supply one can swap 15A IEC power cords! This holdover from the old design is a big bonus in terms of tuning the speaker in an audio system! In this particular instance King’s Audio is not to get with it if it means diminution of the driver performance.
Further changed is the arrangement of Midrange/Tweeter panels reduced from five to three, and their elongation. The Mid/Treble driver array’s top and bottom fall a few inches short of the bass panel array’s extent. All the drivers appear identical, but the Mylar is thinner for the Mid/Treble drivers. Here we see an additional advantage in comparison to classic Magnetic Planar designs. My understanding has been that such magnetic planar drivers vary in the metal affixed to the Mylar, not the thickness of the Mylar. If so, then King’s Audio has found another technological edge, as a thinner driver with no metal affixed is a lighter driver, a lighter driver is a faster driver, and a faster driver is just plain better!
A friend who works in the medical device design field and is an electrostatic headphone fan was inspired by the circuit board appearance of the perforated stators and mirror-like golden sheen of the coating on the drivers. As he listened to the King III all he could say was, “Wow… Wow… Wow!” I had seen a cutaway pic of the new Quad 29 series speaker and it looked a lot like the same perforated stator as King’s Audio. Roger assures that the company is not making drivers for other speaker manufacturers. It would make sense, however, that since Quad moved assembly of their speaker to China similar components would be sourced and used there. My guess is that the perforated green grid has become the new standard for ESL drivers, just as I predicted the ESS Sabre 32 Reference DAC chip would become the standard chip for superior 24bit DACs.
One can hardly miss the Harting Han Industrial Connector with integrated locks tethered to the panel by a cable lead as thick as a man’s thumb. This virtual train coupler of a plug guarantees the Control Driver box will not escape should it try to run away. It also shuttles every bit of the juicy step up transformer energy and crossover information to the panel. It must be admitted that the Control Driver seems incongruous as a wall wart supplies power to the front while the speakers are linked by an industrial connector! I had serious reservations when I saw the external crossover, the cable coming from the speaker and the odd connector. However, it only took one listening session to dispel all my worries and come to admire the setup.
As to serviceability, the speaker design allows for repair in your home; Performance Devices recommends it be done by a qualified electronic technician to ensure safety and quality work. The process is as follows; After identifying the ailing driver one simply removes the associated pigtail insulation protecting the wire connections and cuts the wire. Then the screws holding the panel in place can be removed. The process is reversed for installation. One of the bonuses of a simply built speaker is a simple repair process. It is nicer to contemplate replacement shipping of a light driver weighing perhaps five pounds as opposed to shipping an entire speaker! King’s Audio is really with it in terms of the modular maintenance of the speaker!
Down to brass tacks, or plastic grids
When it comes to the panel, King’s Audio is into the use of inexpensive parts good enough to get the job done, a lot of audio manufacturers are, while eschewing obnoxious bling (unlike a lot of audio manufacturers). When you look carefully not just at, but into audio products in the high end you will see it all, such as high end speaker makers using run-of-the-mill internal cabling, and amplifier makers using just-up-to-spec, good enough transformers. The King III speaker is exposed to the world, not hidden in a box. Collectively, it strikes me as having jewel-like diaphragms housed in a plastic box. No one goes to view the Crown Jewels for the case they are displayed in. Would the jewels become less fantastic if they were placed in a more humble display? The temptation is to render judgment on the sound of the King III by looking at the “case” they are displayed in. These panels are what they are; budget frames which hold precious sounding works of art.
I suspect King’s Audio has a high degree of confidence in the sound their speaker makes. They could have permanently affixed the grills on the King III and none of this discussion would be taking place, unless someone took it upon themselves to tear into one of them. But that would have destroyed the sound, and it strikes me that the team at King’s Audio is after extreme sound, not extreme bling. I am particularly happy about that.
You can bet that if the King III sounded mediocre I would be slamming it for the poor construction ethic. But how does one fault a manufacturer for keeping down prices by using bargain materials, yet producing a speaker which is clearly superior sounding to supposed leaders in its class? Indeed, how does one even reach the conclusion that superior sound cannot be achieved by using economical materials? An enriching listen to the King III shatters conventional conclusions.
The crossover seems different
When it comes to quality, the external crossover and power supply of the King III strikes me as wholly different. The panels seem economical, but the crossovers seem posh. They are beautiful, with a brushed plumb colored ¼” aluminum chassis which evokes admiration. My first thought at seeing them was, “Aw, why couldn’t they have made the speaker’s frame out of this?” The reason is the speaker would weigh at least three times as much and cost likewise! So, I’ll settle for the bling lavished on the crossover unit. When the grills are on, the entire affair, speakers and crossovers, are posh.
My second thought upon examining the face of the external crossover was, “Oh shit! Not that stupid $2 wall wart power supply again!” I couldn’t believe it; I thought for sure the cheesy throw away power supply that was used for the King would be replaced with a proper 15A IEC. But as we have seen there was a design principle involved in the decision to keep it. I was anticipating the Royal Power Supply from VAC to be unnecessary with the redesign of the King III. Suddenly, I felt the wheels in my mind turning, prompting me to try the Royal Power Supply’s plug in the King III power supply receptacle. As I rushed to fetch it I muttered, “Please, please, pleaaaaase…” hoping that the adapter socket on the external crossover had not been changed from that on the King. It worked perfectly, thus enabling the King III speaker to receive proper power treatment and have its performance elevated accordingly.
On the front end of the crossover a blue LED illuminates when the unit is plugged in. There are two pair of speaker binding posts, one set for the “Woofer” and the other for the “Tweeter”. The crossover unit has jumper bars on the binding posts, so be sure to remove them if you are bi-wiring, that is using two sets of speaker cables. Through experimentation I discovered that doubling bi-wire (four speaker cables used in parallel pairs per channel!) speaker cables is enormously efficacious, and I worked to double them to the King III. It gets tight but it can be done, and is well worth the cost and effort! This is another strongly recommended action which owners of the King III will want to do. But if your binding posts on your amp are loose at the base, or not robust in terms of construction you may be asking for trouble to try it. If you attempt it, make absolutely certain that all your cabling is parallel, as you do not want a blown amplifier! If you are in doubt or have a habit of sloppiness in setting up rigs, bypass this step. As usual with alternative configurations it is completely a “Do at your own risk,” endeavor.
- ← Previous page
- (Page 4 of 7)
- Next page →
In addition to being overly long and repetitive, this “review” comes across to me as an unmitigated marketing piece. This is neither reporting nor reviewing — it’s crooning.
Bias seems to permeate the entire piece. The wall wart is first dreaded, then hailed as a bright design decision, then dismissed in favor of an expensive VAC unit. Reference speakers are trounced without benefit oF audition in the same room or system. Horrid build quality (for devices meant for living rooms and costing as much as an automobile) is lamented then explained away.
I’m sure that these speakers sound very good, perhaps even better. But this over-the-top exposition, coupled with what I heard from the King II in demos, is tough for me to parse.
Bob
Bob,
God’s Joy to you.
I don’t know too many marketing plans which call for thorough, unflinching description of a product’s weaknesses. Rather than mask the speaker’s foibles I laid them out in full view and assessed them relative to its overwhelming strength, its sound quality.
Do not mistake enthusiasm based on performance for bias. I believe you would have a difficult time arguing against my technological reasons for my conclusion.
I agree with you that the King II was not all that, likely a reason it went away fairly quickly. I also heard it at CES 2011, I believe, and was not overly impressed. It had an integral power supply and crossover similar to the original King; the new external power supply and crossover seems to confer a distinct advantage to the King III. The King II also had one less bass panel than the King III. If you are basing your impressions on what you heard from the King II, be assured the King III is an entirely different experience.
I should add an addendum to the article; I also heard Danny Richie’s efforts at a hybrid mangetic planar at RMAF 2012 and felt it was well executed sonically. I believe the use of smaller multiple magnetic planar drive units, similar to the King III implementation of a Line Source type of array could hold great promise for the magnetic planar technology going forward.
To each his own, so thanks to Doug for the great review. I heard the original King years ago and was impressed, so the King II is certainly heavy competition at the price and I can’t imagine how much better the KS-30 would be.
The Red Wine Audio Black Lightning battery supply ($900) is an alternative to the wall wart + VAC supply, gets the speaker off the grid completely and should sound at least as good as the VAC.
Regards,
No record player or tape unit??? Only CD’s and servers??? Unbelievable!!!!!
Ant,
Thank you for your readership and email. Reviews by Phillip Holmes, Richard Mak, Jack Roberts, Ray Seda, to name a few, are often turntable-related, for they are the vinylphiles. Doug Schroeder’s sole source is digital, so is mine and Ed Momkus’. Therefore, you won’t find insights on analog setups from the last three’s reviews.
Of course, there are also the unthinkably resourceful, amphibious Dagogoans who have both analog and digital sources, like Richard Austen, Laurence Borden, Fred Crowder, Adam LaBarge and George Papadimitriou. It’s quite a party.
I’ve been waiting to read this review ever since RAMF 2012, when I mentioned to Doug that the King III’s had impressed me, and he proceeded to tell me how they could sound even better (all the details mentioned in the review). There’s no doubt in my mind that of the under $20k speakers at RAMF, the NOLA KO’s and King III’s were the standouts, each in their own (quite different) way. I would have loved to directly (or at least closely) compare the Kings to the Magnepan 20.7, certainly its main competition. Maybe Doug can talk Magnepan into letting him try (they are pretty close to him)?
Rob,
God’s Joy to you,
Good to hear from you again!
I have doubts that Magnepan would wish to send me their flagship speaker in the context of my comments about the inherent weaknesses of their design. I would guess they would be hesitant to have the 20.7 compared directly to the King III. Further, I’m not sure that a 20.7 review would be the best use of my time presently. However, if Magnepan was confident of their speaker and wished me to write it up, I would give it a fair analysis. I would be delighted if they took some of my criticisms and revised the speaker to make it even more performance oriented. Then I would be eager to review it, as I believe the performance would increase substantially.
Blessings,
Douglas Schroeder
I did not find a comment concerning listening area width. I have found that ESLs typically have a narrow listening area, sometimes akin to keeping one’s head in a vicelike position. I owned Acoustat Xs, 2+2s, Martin Logan Quest and Monolith IIIs. I have read that the Sanders 10C has a 3 foot wide listening area width. I now listen to Legacy Focus speakers which give me a 9′ to 10′ listening width (it’s a big room). How wide a listening area do the King IIIs have? Thanks.
Stephen,
God’s Peace to you,
You have asked a wise question, one which would come into play with most ESL speakers. However, the King III is quite generous in terms of not beaming or being too narrow when it comes to the listening window. I have the speakers directed at me and still have a plentious envelope of sound such that I can turn my head or lean over to speak to another person and have no falling away of the stereo balance, only a slight shift.
You will note that the treble panels for the King III are quite wide in comparison with ribbons and narrow drivers. Consequently, there is far more forgiveness in terms of the listener’s position relative to the speakers. Regarding the listening area width as you describe it, the King III is rather large, I would say larger than the Legacy Audio Focus speakers. The King III does not suffer from a smallish soundstage at all; on the contrary it is enormous and immensely gratifying! If they were used parallel to the head wall they would yield a giant field of sound. You may lose some of the solidity of the center image if they are used without toe in, so I recommend some to firm up the phantom image in the middle.
Blessings,
Douglas Schroeder
Doug, the broader mid/tweet drivers provide more beaming and thus narrower “sweet spot”. Their width is no advantage in this regard. Where the bigger upper range drivers help is in allowing extending the XO down a little, or filling in the lower portion of the driver’s operating range at higher volumes.
I believe the issue with the superior performance of the King III is that they managed to come up with a better coating that allows the stators to be placed closer without arcing – thus increasing the electrical field and ratio of motive force to moving mass – which they increased also by taking a thinner mylar – which is probably why they had to increase the driver area – since it may have limits in tensile strength at the lower thickness. Can you comment on sensitivity and ultimate bass power?
Via bracing one can have stronger and more extended bass from the big maggies. The BG Neo 8 array I use for my midrange gives me the good force to mass ratio which is reflected in the sensitivity as well as the detail it can reproduce precisely. It also has the capacity to provide the ear bleed peak SPL I like, at beyond 120 db at the listening seat. The higher SPL is allowed by the greater excursion. The segmented array has very much the benefit you noted relative to the long drivers in getting rid of the annoying plastic sound. For a listener like me, the drawback of even the biggest ESLs is this loss of peak power. If the big events in big music don’t come through, I can’t care much for the details, imaging and ambient field recovery and true tonal balance and texture.
Completely agree about the grilles needing to be removable on the maggies. There is an issue of taming the ribbon that the cloth does – since it is so much more sensitive than the mids. And there is the WAF issue with the raw maggie drivers looking downright ugly.
I should note that at the moving mass includes the obstructed air in the gap, which is a limitation on how much of a difference the absolute mass/area of the diaphragm can make. It is interesting that the gap is narrow enough and the stators open enough so that halving the thickness of the mylar can make that much of a difference. I wonder what can be done with a graphite conductor on the diaphragm in a rare earth magnet’s strong field. Perhaps for once the current carrying capacity of the graphite would be sufficient to produce reasonable output with the reduced mass. Probably not, since the graphite is 300 times more resistive than Al, while the neodymium magnet is only 10 times stronger.
It is true that the electrostatic diaphragm has a lower mass, and therefore a lower inertia, of the diaphragm of a Eminent VI or a Magneplanar, but should be considered which amplifier is used. With a fast transistor instead of a slower valve, the gap is significantly reduced.
Regards
Doug
Since I stopped publishing the Sensible Sound magazine in 2008 I have been fine with speakers. However, the itch returns and I thought back to the speakers that most pleased me toward the end of the magazine’s 32 year run: The original “Kings” as heard at the 2006 CES.
The haphazard King demo was musically the best of the show, and they have been in a back corner of my mind ever since.
An internet search brought me to your review. The editor in me want to help (everyone needs an editor), but my music lover part says thank you.
I have been with Acoustat speakers since 1984 i heard the Kingsound speakers in a show in Montreal a few years back and i also have a friend that own’s a pair they are great speakers but like many say ( reliability ) will they last ????? in over 30 years with my Acoustats i never had a problem just plenty of mods mods mods they keep on getting better and better Acoustat as been out of the picture ( USA models ) for more than 20 years i for one WELCOME Kingsound they are true full range stats.
Hello,
Having enjoyed Doug Schroeder’s many reviews for Dagogo over the years and sharing a pair of Kingsound King II electrostatics, I was interested to hear if Doug has ever pursued the active crossover route for his Kings.
Unfortunately I haven’t had any success with either the manufacturer or the USA distributor, with my queries being given the usual patronising response.
Best Regards,
Hank Bakker
Melbourne Australia
Hank,
God’s Joy to you,
No, I have not pursued active x-overs for the King. There are a few reasons; I do not have the requisite knowledge to built my own filters, thus it would take another party (who likely wouldn’t do so for free) to be the software guru for the x-over. I also would have to secure the proper hardware, and, frankly, I only have so much time to devote to that if it’s going to be used with a speaker which might see 25% of play time in my systems. I can’t blame Kingsound for being hesitant to go that direction, as electrostatic speakers are tough enough to sell to the public, let alone pushing for an active system. Finally, I have to work with equipment the public can actually obtain, not such esoteric pieces that it bears no similarity to what they could expect to hear. If I customize everything to the point that the sound is not representative of the stock unit, then my review loses some of it’s applicability to the community.
For such reasons I am content to use an upgraded power supply (VAC Royal Power Supply) to the stock King’s power supply, and work with cabling.
Blessings,
Douglas Schroeder