Since Kilburn II is portable whereas Acton II (see image: Acton II Bluetooth) is not, this comparison doesn't really make much sense. My point in this post is to prove that the Kilburn II is NOT simply the portable version of the Acton II.
I was wondering about the differences between Marshall's Acton II vs Kilburn II speakers as they're roughly the same size.
So I made an intense research about this and also contacted the Marshall Customer Service (chat history available at the bottom of this post), but I didn't really like their support due to some outright incorrect information.
In the end, I've put together all my findings here in this post.
Marshall Acton II Bluetooth and Kilburn II aren't cheap by any means. This is why I'd recommend you to read this short post entirely - but if you're looking for a short answer, here it is:
In summary, although Kilburn II still does sound pretty good, Acton II Bluetooth sounds noticeably more satisfying. Kilburn II is NOT simply the "portable version" of the Acton II Bluetooth. Instead, it lacks significant amplifier power, so it's weaker.
Although Kilburn II still does sound pretty good, Acton II Bluetooth sounds noticeably more satisfying. Kilburn II is NOT simply the "portable version" of the Acton II Bluetooth, and instead, it lacks significant amplifier power, so it's weaker.
Kilburn II's two tweeters and one woofer are standing at 8 and 20 Watts respectively. Whereas the same amount of tweeters and woofer of the Acton II Bluetooth stand at 15 and 30 Watts respectively.
But still, Kilburn II is listed at 100.4 decibel at 1 meter whereas the Acton II at 98 decibel at 1 meter. It seems like Kilburn II is stronger?
So how does this happen?
Sound power and quality
Have you ever noticed that there often tends to be quite the opposite opinions about a speaker?
I can understand this for more "personal taste" kinda products like clothing, for example.
But for engineering products like speakers? Personal tastes and preferences probably still play a role. But shouldn't it be less?
Why is it that we can't set a universal metric for sound quality?
First time I asked this question to myself has been a pivotal day.
Because it turns out that in the mid 90's, Electrical Engineer PhD Floyd Toole came up with a method called Spinorama. This is exactly what he accomplished with this. Turns out that his book Sound Reproduction is like the bible of audiophiles.
Put it simply, Spinorama is a set of measurements that gives a comprehensive overview of a speaker's performance from various angles.
It allows you to compare the performances of different speakers before even laying your ears hands on them.
Isn't that amazing?
This is why Spinorama was apparently groundbreaking news for audio industry. Hence in the mid-late 2010's, most brands and magazines began publishing Spinorama measurements, despite the challenges of making such measurements.
Fortunately, now we have the Spinorama data for a bunch of quite popular speakers. Pierre Aubert put all this untidy data together and put it into https://www.spinorama.org/. This is a stunning source. Pretty valuable stuff from him right there.
All good up to this point.
Now there comes a caveat.
Since the sound speakers propagate are in the form of omnidirectional waves, all measurements are obtained in anechoic or semi-anechoic chambers (a super-quiet room where soundwaves don't bounce back, here's how different that room sounds [a mind blowing time-adjusted video]).
This is a problem because it means that Spinorama alone, unfortunately, won't give us all we need. Placement and reflections play an equally important role there too.
This is why most A-class brands (like SVS, Bang & Olufsen, etc) often come up with room correction features, adjusted either manually or automatically. The EQ adapts itself to the placement (room, corner, center, etc) for a better (deeper and more accurate) sound. Which is great.
Additionally they often emphasize the importance of placement, here is an example: https://www.svsound.com/blogs/subwoofer-setup-and-tuning/75365187-the-art-of-subwoofer-placement
Anyways...
The source code under Pierre Aubert's work is licensed under GPL (General public license). He didn't perform any of the measurements himself, and instead he compiled all of them into one place, so that makes sense.
At this point, I thought that if there was a tool that combined both the Spinorama with the room acoustics data, it'd be extremely useful.
Unfortunately, it turns out that there wasn't any.
This is where I stepped in and partnered with an Acoustics and Audio Engineering PhD in order to achieve this.
We combined Spinorama data with room acoustics and came up with Soundton. A very simple, 2D online tool that allows you to:
- Reveal optimal speaker positions in a room,
- Test with real speakers from real brands,
- Compare different speakers and different positions in the room.
It can be very valuable for the vast majority.
The colormap provides you the locations with the best (green) and worst (red) listening experience.
It works the best with subwoofers since Soundton processes low frequency response waves only.
- Soundton is going to be, say, 80% accurate. Not 100%.
- Because, other parameters such as the age/materials of the building, furniture/windows in place also have an impact on room acoustics.
- If you want absolutely the most detailed room analysis, then what you need is an acoustics consultant. Mind you that's going to require deep pockets and patience though... assuming you find the right person and they get the job done.