RickyDeg
Prominent Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2013
- Messages
- 1,310
- Reaction score
- 847
- Points
- 328
The following are personal, subjective views and impressions. Being a Ken Kreisel Quattro owner I also decided (against all odds) to make a few comparisons here and there as these two systems naturally have a few things in common. However, this is NOT intended as any kind of “review” or a fair A/B comparison because I was unable to do that. I’m writing this purely out of interest of sharing, not to start a hefty debate. Any comments or questions are welcome, of course!
A colleague of mine from work have been talking for years about throwing out his old Canton floorstanders in favour of a high performance sub/sat system. Primarily for better movie sound. He was interested in the KK Quattro speakers initially but went another route, and so he installed a full XTZ Cinema Series system the other week. As an owner of the Quattro system I was interested in seeing these speakers up-close and to hear them play. I spent most of last weekend exercising an interesting demo at his house. My colleague have spent numerous movie nights with the Quattro's at my place so I thought it only fair lol.
Even though we don't have identical listening rooms (his is slightly larger with more solid walls than mine) our furnishings and placements of individual speakers are similar. We also have different electronics. Apart from these obvious differences (should be taken into consideration) it was fascinating nonetheless. His system is a traditional 5.1 set-up of the Cinema Series using a pair of SUB 1X12 subwoofers. Electronics included Yamaha CX-A5000 with MX-A5000 and an Oppo BDP-103. Blu-ray titles included the following:
Oblivion
Edge Of Tomorrow
Godzilla
Pacific Rim
Day After Tomorrow
Finding Nemo
How To Train Your Dragon
Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds at Radio City Music Hall
Madonna Sticky & Sweet
Roy Orbinson Black & White Night
He assured me that no automatic calibration or EQ had been performed yet and we simply ran everything ‘direct’ through the electronics without excessive DSP or other distractions (the same way I do with my Primare electronics at home). Just a pure, unadulterated signal. Levels had been set with an SPL meter. The speakers had been running for about 100 hours or so before I showed up. I’m not certain they were completely broken in but perhaps not far behind.
Aesthetical and practical impressions first. The cabinets of the Cinema Series are attractive though somewhat larger and bulkier than the Quattro's. Not by much but enough for me to know I would have had trouble housing them at my place, at least in terms of the M6 center. One good aspect about the center was that it's not “limited” by a table base attachment with screw holes (one of the gripes I originally had with the dedicated Quattro center). Build quality was excellent and the cabinets appeared virtually 'dead', just like the Quattro’s. The speakers appear less reflective since the cabinets aren’t all glossy black, only a portion of the front baffle. Even though the designs are similar (which is to say very good and attractive) I personally think the Quattro system on the whole looks somewhat nicer and more luxurious, but at the cost of more reflectiveness. The floor stands for the Cinema Series I didn't find as handsome or flush as the equivalent stands for the Quattro Q125’s, but in turn they offer more flexibility. They can be used with all the speaker models, even the S5 surrounds, which is not really possible with the Quattro stand. The subwoofers looked a bit clunky for my personal taste, compared to the “slimmer” design of the DXD-12012, but build quality was good.
As I began to listen the front of the soundstage was excellent - very much on par with what I experience from the Quattro Q125’s at home. Dynamic with powerful transients, though still smooth and pleasing to the ears. There was a myriad of details and great imaging. These speakers love loud volumes and they keep composure without strain or distortion. Low volumes seemed to work too, without losing too much detail. You sacrifice impact of course but that is to be expected. Dialogue was realistic and a joy to listen to and the entire front soundstage easily drew you in. Nothing was distracting. Soundtrack scores also sounded sublime and it was easy to pick out every note. These appear to be rather musical satellite speakers. Basically the benefits I’ve written about elsewhere on the Quattro’s seemed present. I can’t say if the D'Appolito arrangement of the drivers on the M6's made any discernable difference to dispersion, at least none that I detected. It was very good, similar to the Q125’s, which is to say sharply focused yet wide and deep. Possibly one positive aspect of having the tweeters in the ‘middle’ could be easier placement at ear height in certain installations.
When it came to the rear soundstage the S5 surround speakers at first seemed a bit of an afterthought. For some reason they didn't have an identical 4 tweeter arrangement like the M6 fronts. Not sure why this is. That said - imaging in terms of effects placement, panning and overall size of the sound field was awesome. On par with what I experience with Quattro’s TriFX surrounds. They blended fairly well with the fronts. But perhaps the ‘lesser’ tweeter arrangement limited the utmost dynamic capabilities compared to the TriFX, and indeed the M6 fronts. With aggressive surround effects at loud volume I didn't experience quite the same level of dynamic response in the surround field. Transients weren’t quite as palpable. Not every movie contain really aggressive surround effects but when they do I believe the difference may be noticeable. That’s not to say the S5's are bad in any way, just a tad limited compared to what an identical 4 tweeter arrangement could have accomplished. Perhaps XTZ cut corners a bit here? This aside, the surrounds are a pleasing experience and complete the system nicely. These are very flexible speakers, which is a great feature for any surround speaker to have. Also, because the cabinets don’t have a downward angle like the TriFX there’s no risk of them tipping over should they be placed on-top speaker stands or other surfaces (good news if you can’t wall-mount).
The subwoofers delivered a steady foundation and brought terrific heft to the experience, especially with LFE-heavy movies like "Godzilla" and "Day After Tomorrow". The woofers easily took command of the room and didn’t hold back for a second. A similar sensation of pressure I often experience at home with just the one DXD-12012 was evident here as well. Low-level detail was great, if not always exemplary. For example; during “Pacific Rim” there were a couple instances during indoor sequences at the Jaeger hangars where subtle low-level cues seemed a tad subdued through the XTZ subwoofers. When listening to extremely bass-heavy live concert material, “Madonna Sticky & Sweet” in particular, the subwoofers occasionally exhibited a tad ‘overhang’ during the most challenging tracks. Bass didn’t start and stop quite as fast during the same passages as it does with this concert through my DXD-12012 at home. This wasn’t audible during low or moderate volume levels but when we really cranked it I noticed it. It wasn’t too distracting and nothing I noticed during movies, but enough for me to take note. My friend noticed it too. Maybe the DXD-12012 with its special configuration offer more iron-fist control and higher sensitivity to low-level detail, things I’ve become very accustomed to. Or perhaps it could be a matter of positioning or tweaking in this case, not entirely sure. Maybe more loosening up was needed too. Make no mistake though – these subwoofers are capable of moving air and for the money it's extraordinary. Immense power and presence!
Didn’t get around listening to plain 2-channel music this time I’m afraid, only multichannel Blu-rays.
Ken Kreisel set the bar high with the Quattro system. Perhaps it’s no wonder others wanted to 'follow'. The surrounding circumstances to how this speaker system came about is a burning topic and not without (understandable) controversy. To me personally it’s not a big deal – I’ve kept a cool head about it. I’m no die hard fan and believe I can keep things in perspective. That said - the Cinema Series, based on the many qualities of the Quattro system, is a great set of speakers. No doubt about it. I’m certain they’ll find a large group of fans, especially considering the affordable prices. You get a lot of speaker for your money and in turn you are rewarded with an engrossing listening experience. There are limits to this system, just as there are with the Quattros and most other speakers, but the joy of watching a film would be hard to fault! I don’t regret my purchase of the Quattro system because it suits me well and offer the performance/aesthetic value I wanted. If I could have tried the Cinema Series in my own room with my electronics this demo would have been fair in terms of the comparison aspect, but I wasn’t inclined to go through the hassle.
To conclude all I can say is; CONGRATULATIONS! Especially if Ken Kreisel’s Quattro system is out of reach perhaps more folks can afford a similarly performing speaker system at a sensible price. Great home theater sound to more people! Not a bad thing if you ask me! Needless to say my colleague is very pleased.
PS! FYI: I've made correction edits to my original post; two typos and one rephrased sentence.
A colleague of mine from work have been talking for years about throwing out his old Canton floorstanders in favour of a high performance sub/sat system. Primarily for better movie sound. He was interested in the KK Quattro speakers initially but went another route, and so he installed a full XTZ Cinema Series system the other week. As an owner of the Quattro system I was interested in seeing these speakers up-close and to hear them play. I spent most of last weekend exercising an interesting demo at his house. My colleague have spent numerous movie nights with the Quattro's at my place so I thought it only fair lol.
Even though we don't have identical listening rooms (his is slightly larger with more solid walls than mine) our furnishings and placements of individual speakers are similar. We also have different electronics. Apart from these obvious differences (should be taken into consideration) it was fascinating nonetheless. His system is a traditional 5.1 set-up of the Cinema Series using a pair of SUB 1X12 subwoofers. Electronics included Yamaha CX-A5000 with MX-A5000 and an Oppo BDP-103. Blu-ray titles included the following:
Oblivion
Edge Of Tomorrow
Godzilla
Pacific Rim
Day After Tomorrow
Finding Nemo
How To Train Your Dragon
Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds at Radio City Music Hall
Madonna Sticky & Sweet
Roy Orbinson Black & White Night
He assured me that no automatic calibration or EQ had been performed yet and we simply ran everything ‘direct’ through the electronics without excessive DSP or other distractions (the same way I do with my Primare electronics at home). Just a pure, unadulterated signal. Levels had been set with an SPL meter. The speakers had been running for about 100 hours or so before I showed up. I’m not certain they were completely broken in but perhaps not far behind.
Aesthetical and practical impressions first. The cabinets of the Cinema Series are attractive though somewhat larger and bulkier than the Quattro's. Not by much but enough for me to know I would have had trouble housing them at my place, at least in terms of the M6 center. One good aspect about the center was that it's not “limited” by a table base attachment with screw holes (one of the gripes I originally had with the dedicated Quattro center). Build quality was excellent and the cabinets appeared virtually 'dead', just like the Quattro’s. The speakers appear less reflective since the cabinets aren’t all glossy black, only a portion of the front baffle. Even though the designs are similar (which is to say very good and attractive) I personally think the Quattro system on the whole looks somewhat nicer and more luxurious, but at the cost of more reflectiveness. The floor stands for the Cinema Series I didn't find as handsome or flush as the equivalent stands for the Quattro Q125’s, but in turn they offer more flexibility. They can be used with all the speaker models, even the S5 surrounds, which is not really possible with the Quattro stand. The subwoofers looked a bit clunky for my personal taste, compared to the “slimmer” design of the DXD-12012, but build quality was good.
As I began to listen the front of the soundstage was excellent - very much on par with what I experience from the Quattro Q125’s at home. Dynamic with powerful transients, though still smooth and pleasing to the ears. There was a myriad of details and great imaging. These speakers love loud volumes and they keep composure without strain or distortion. Low volumes seemed to work too, without losing too much detail. You sacrifice impact of course but that is to be expected. Dialogue was realistic and a joy to listen to and the entire front soundstage easily drew you in. Nothing was distracting. Soundtrack scores also sounded sublime and it was easy to pick out every note. These appear to be rather musical satellite speakers. Basically the benefits I’ve written about elsewhere on the Quattro’s seemed present. I can’t say if the D'Appolito arrangement of the drivers on the M6's made any discernable difference to dispersion, at least none that I detected. It was very good, similar to the Q125’s, which is to say sharply focused yet wide and deep. Possibly one positive aspect of having the tweeters in the ‘middle’ could be easier placement at ear height in certain installations.
When it came to the rear soundstage the S5 surround speakers at first seemed a bit of an afterthought. For some reason they didn't have an identical 4 tweeter arrangement like the M6 fronts. Not sure why this is. That said - imaging in terms of effects placement, panning and overall size of the sound field was awesome. On par with what I experience with Quattro’s TriFX surrounds. They blended fairly well with the fronts. But perhaps the ‘lesser’ tweeter arrangement limited the utmost dynamic capabilities compared to the TriFX, and indeed the M6 fronts. With aggressive surround effects at loud volume I didn't experience quite the same level of dynamic response in the surround field. Transients weren’t quite as palpable. Not every movie contain really aggressive surround effects but when they do I believe the difference may be noticeable. That’s not to say the S5's are bad in any way, just a tad limited compared to what an identical 4 tweeter arrangement could have accomplished. Perhaps XTZ cut corners a bit here? This aside, the surrounds are a pleasing experience and complete the system nicely. These are very flexible speakers, which is a great feature for any surround speaker to have. Also, because the cabinets don’t have a downward angle like the TriFX there’s no risk of them tipping over should they be placed on-top speaker stands or other surfaces (good news if you can’t wall-mount).
The subwoofers delivered a steady foundation and brought terrific heft to the experience, especially with LFE-heavy movies like "Godzilla" and "Day After Tomorrow". The woofers easily took command of the room and didn’t hold back for a second. A similar sensation of pressure I often experience at home with just the one DXD-12012 was evident here as well. Low-level detail was great, if not always exemplary. For example; during “Pacific Rim” there were a couple instances during indoor sequences at the Jaeger hangars where subtle low-level cues seemed a tad subdued through the XTZ subwoofers. When listening to extremely bass-heavy live concert material, “Madonna Sticky & Sweet” in particular, the subwoofers occasionally exhibited a tad ‘overhang’ during the most challenging tracks. Bass didn’t start and stop quite as fast during the same passages as it does with this concert through my DXD-12012 at home. This wasn’t audible during low or moderate volume levels but when we really cranked it I noticed it. It wasn’t too distracting and nothing I noticed during movies, but enough for me to take note. My friend noticed it too. Maybe the DXD-12012 with its special configuration offer more iron-fist control and higher sensitivity to low-level detail, things I’ve become very accustomed to. Or perhaps it could be a matter of positioning or tweaking in this case, not entirely sure. Maybe more loosening up was needed too. Make no mistake though – these subwoofers are capable of moving air and for the money it's extraordinary. Immense power and presence!
Didn’t get around listening to plain 2-channel music this time I’m afraid, only multichannel Blu-rays.
Ken Kreisel set the bar high with the Quattro system. Perhaps it’s no wonder others wanted to 'follow'. The surrounding circumstances to how this speaker system came about is a burning topic and not without (understandable) controversy. To me personally it’s not a big deal – I’ve kept a cool head about it. I’m no die hard fan and believe I can keep things in perspective. That said - the Cinema Series, based on the many qualities of the Quattro system, is a great set of speakers. No doubt about it. I’m certain they’ll find a large group of fans, especially considering the affordable prices. You get a lot of speaker for your money and in turn you are rewarded with an engrossing listening experience. There are limits to this system, just as there are with the Quattros and most other speakers, but the joy of watching a film would be hard to fault! I don’t regret my purchase of the Quattro system because it suits me well and offer the performance/aesthetic value I wanted. If I could have tried the Cinema Series in my own room with my electronics this demo would have been fair in terms of the comparison aspect, but I wasn’t inclined to go through the hassle.
To conclude all I can say is; CONGRATULATIONS! Especially if Ken Kreisel’s Quattro system is out of reach perhaps more folks can afford a similarly performing speaker system at a sensible price. Great home theater sound to more people! Not a bad thing if you ask me! Needless to say my colleague is very pleased.
PS! FYI: I've made correction edits to my original post; two typos and one rephrased sentence.
Last edited: