You might think it odd that I am using a regulated power supply with the King III’s own power supply. It’s not so unusual to have piggy backed power supplies; everyone who has an outboard power conditioning component is doing the same, making purportedly better power for an already powered device. What is beneficial about the Royal Power Supply is that it uses a 15A IEC, so the owner can still adjust power cords to suit! I am not in awe of power conditioners and filters, as I find them to be as subtractive as additive. Yet, the Royal Power Supply had clearly improved the performance of the King, and similarly jacks up the quality of the King III.
So, what does it mean that I introduced a 15A power cord to the setup? Did the speaker seem adversely affected by the power cord? Not in the least, but this may have been due to the quality of the regulated Royal Power Supply from VAC. I noted in my original review that I considered the RPS essential for the King; I reiterate my findings here. Don’t use the King III long term without the Royal Power Supply as it would be like running a high performance car with low grade gasoline.
Now that the King III has been discussed as being composed of the Control Driver and a panel, I would expect readers to have me weigh in on which is most responsible for the outlandish improvement in sound quality. It is a moot point, however, as both are absolutely essential to the speaker’s performance. I do know that whatever products I have reviewed, if they are made with low grade elements the sound suffers regardless of the brand of the product. The King II does not sound like it is suffering at all. Obviously, the quality is placed precisely where it must be to attain ultimate performance. The quality is such that it reminds me of speaker systems using active crossovers.
Proper description and setup
I have shared my perspective regarding the composition of the speaker but have not run through a simple discussion of its physical comportment. It is a lovelier speaker than the King. The King III has copper hued half-moon shaped side rails. At the base of the rails narrow triangular legs appearing like flattened Hershey Kisses hold the speaker erect. These have integral adjustable metal footers in the front to affect a backward lean of the panel. I preferred the King tilted backward, but the King III is more amenable to playing upright.
The face of the speaker has a thin, opaque black grill, but the rear grill material is of a more dense faux metallic silver material. One of the expectations I had of the King III as it was in development was that it would have reversible grills, allowing for two options aesthetically. It did not happen; the identically sized grills with connectors located in different spots on the front and rear eliminate the option of swapping them. As when I considered the wall wart, I found myself mouth agape wondering what sort of logic led to that decision! It is tough enough to sell panel speakers to guys with difficult WAF issues. To ban the sensual silver grill as an option for the front prompted me to fume, “What are those designers thinking?” Upon further analysis I concluded that the ultra-thin speaker would not accommodate grill mounting hardware front and back in the same position, so the front remains the front and back remains the back. For those people who care more about the appearance than the performance I certainly hope King’s Audio offers an option of the silver grill on the front of the speaker.
Could a person turn the speaker around and run it backwards, since it is dipole? I suppose one could, and this is perhaps why the cute-as-a-button miniature logo for Kingsound appears on the base of both grills. If you do turn the silver grill face forward you will need to affix the feet accordingly as they are not symmetrical. Further, expect more of the smashed wave sound as you will be pushing the sound waves through a thicker grill; I do not advise it for the most hard core listeners. Conversely, if I was forced to use it that way I likely would in preference over the other speakers mentioned above. I did turn around two Legacy Audio Xtreme HD subwoofers because the active driver, versus the passive downward firing radiator, was aimed to the rear of the sub. I didn’t want a reflected bass but a direct bass. It is a rare case where doing something ass-backwards is better! I find it difficult to see, apart from aesthetics, a good reason to turn around the King III.
The driver elements themselves are visually dissonant, with a golden hued, glistening reflection off the sheer driver, yet an economical plastic grid holding the stators. The wispy driver membrane sandwiched between the green perforated stators appears to have no room to move, which is precisely why the technology is superior; a shorter excursion distance means the diaphragm can be kept in check better for greater accuracy. My observation is the membrane is kept in superlative control far beyond that of a magnetic planar. The ear catches this precision instantly. It is so far advanced that it takes a few minutes to acclimate to it. One is used to the sloppiness of a panel – yes, you heard me right, the sloppiness of a panel, specifically a magnetic planar. As compared to the hyper-precision of this type of ESL the other sounds unrefined and sloppy.
Perhaps you think I’m simply getting in jabs at Magneplanar. No, this is a frank discussion of a superior technology, and I am telling it like it is despite the issues it causes for manufacturers with alternative technologies. Trust me, manufacturers and distributors tend to go ballistic when they see a comment which simply states a new, superior technology has outclassed theirs as it tends to hamper sales. But I will not blur the truth as I see it, since I want a reputation of telling it straight, and the straight truth is the new ESL is far better. How much better? Subjectively, I would have no issue saying the King III panels are a perceived 50% improvement holistically. Even dual array magnetic Planars suffer in comparison. I have the Eminent Technology LFT-VI at my office, which is a dual array magnetic planar speaker and it sounds laid back and slow compared to the quickness of the King III drivers. The reason people love Quads is for their “realism” and openness. If you want to hear realism and openness done with grandeur, sit down in front of the King III. It will give you what a Quad gives, along with everything the Quad can’t. Not to mention the Quad’s dual breakwater type smashing of the wave due to the front and back fixed grills. I thought I had better throw that comment in so that I would be fair in my critique of all competitors.
Revisiting the breakwater and smashed wave analogy, it strikes me (pun!) that the perforated grill stators of the original King have a fairly high solid surface to hole ratio, which means a fair bit of the “breakwater” smashing waves. The other manufacturers do not escape this necessity, as Magneplanars have solid rows of magnets held by grids and Martin Logan employs a perforated stator as well. In comparison, the more open grid design of the Prince II and King III allow the sound wave to pass with less molestation. I adjure that this accounts for a large degree of the improvement in sound.
The upper end drivers not extending to the far top and bottom edges of the panel as they did on the King is a fine development since it localizes the center image, shrinking it slightly which makes it more realistically proportionate. A criticism of larger Panel speakers is the way they stretch the center image, and the King also displays that characteristic. The King III strikes a Goldilocks center image, being neither too small nor too large.
The thick umbilical emerges from the bottom of the speaker at the transition point between the bass drivers and Mid/Treble drivers. At its end is the wicked looking, Anaconda-mouthed Harting connector. The Owner’s Manual, a scant photocopy quality four page spirally bound set of sheets with pages two and three out of order – Get with it King’s Audio! – with helpful color illustrations of setup discusses nothing interesting about the speaker. A bit of bedside manner for Doctor Kingsound is in order, as with such a scintillating sounding product audiophiles will want to know what is going on and how it is accomplishing such miracles!
My experience with use of an umbilical or connector is the more hard core it is, the better it sounds. Both VAC and Purity Audio Design use multiple pin, military-like screw down connectors between their power supplies and line stages. If you make a two chassis component you had better use a serious connector and umbilical if you don’t want to trash the signal. Kingsound clearly understands its crucial nature.
When moving the speakers and positioning them watch that the umbilical and Anaconda-connectors do not trip up your feet, nor end up under a foot of the speaker. The first time I moved the speaker across the room the open jaw-like latch of the connector caught the laptop power cord and if I had not been aware it would have pulled the cable taut potentially damaging the laptop. I strongly suggest wrapping the connector in a cloth or bag when moving the speakers to render the jaws of the Anaconda powerless.
- ← Previous page
- (Page 5 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