Kef Q Series advice

There's a speaker builder that builds custom 3-way speakers using the KEF Q driver and a built in sub-woofer. They sound great. $1300 gets you a serious monitor with some great subs built in. They extend down to 20-25 hZ so you can use them for movies as well.

The company is called Soundfield Audio: http://soundfieldaudio.net/

Here's my review of the monitor that I bought at the demo: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1417246/soundfield-audio-monitor-1

A "built-in" subwoofer is a very problematical design.

The fact is that the best location for the main speakers is almost never a good location for the subwoofer.

Having them both in the same box does not make any sense at all.

You want a separate subwoofer so it can be located where it works best in the room.

Your prices are certainly interesting; you say you can get 2 pairs of Q700 for $1000, but on the KEF Direct website they are $749 EACH, or $3000 for 2 pair.

I would suggest that you consider the KEF iQ90 speakers, which are excellent and only $449 each at the current discounted price, along with some iQ30 speakers. The Q900 would be way too big for that room.

Where are those prices coming from?

I believe it is an active woofer design, not a subwoofer like GoldenEar of DefTech. I would recommend a listen. It uses the Kef UniQ mid/tweeter so in any case you are on good path, whichever choice you go with.

Please provide the scientific evidence to support that claim. Repeat scientific evidence., which precludes answers like "I've been doing this for 30 or 40 years". Thanks Bob.
As evidenced by.....??
Which statistically, is spatially where? Using what definition of "works best"?

I have the M1 in my house right now.

I see no problems / issues at all with the built-in sub.

In 2.0, the bass sounds very nice (set to #4 position) - enough for most people for music listening.

In 2.1, I set the bass to #3 and they blend nicely with my dual Velodyne subs.

No issues at all.

I've also owned the DefTech BP7000SC & BP7001SC in the past. I never had an issue with the bass at all.

No issues at all.

AJ, probably not the evidence you are looking for, but the Harman white paper on placement of multiple subwoofers, did not recommend to place them next to or with speakers. I believe it was mid-wall placement.

But that was for subwoofers, and I don't think you are claiming the bass from the M1 to be equivalent to a subwoofer.

Found the link to the presentation:
http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/White%20Papers/multsubs.pdf
Edited by cschang - 7/5/12 at 8:44pm

Curtis, not sure what you are referencing, but real rooms are acoustically far too complex to statistically predict anything about optimization based on spatially locating 2 LF sources at the "main" positions. They will be just that 2 LF sources..and yes, I consider the M1s to be every bit a subwoofer, albeit a compact one...or two actually. One would have to be extremely lucky for only 2 LF sources anywhere in the room to yield a smoothed average across HT seating, so typically, for HT, a 3rd source would recommended for spatial smoothing.
Now I have to add the irony:

I do admire Bobs consistency, i.e. complete inconsistency and misinformation per post.

cheers,

AJ

I added a link to the presentation while you were typing this up.

I think it is safe to say that being able to move your LF sources independently of the mid and high frequencies does have advantages. In the subwoofer forum, in many threads, the subject comes up as where to best place the subwoofer for best response.

That said, the best place is not always the most practical, and in my room, if I defaulted to the same location as my main speakers, and could achieve an nice response with some EQ, I would be very happy.
Edited by cschang - 7/5/12 at 9:16pm

Yes, I see that and I know that paper, so you would have to point out specifically what you are referencing (vs what I have already stated) so I can correct your understanding of what that paper actually represents. There is no inconsistency between the two.

cheers,

AJ

Here was the presentation's conclusion and what I was referencing:

Which, even in the context of the limitations of the paper, still say nothing about (2' raised) mains positions being statistically non-optimal.

No screenshoting from my mobile device, so I'll quote Page 2 to clarify for you: As I stated, there is no inconsistency between my statements and the paper. Unfortunately, as useful as these papers are, they are a double edged sword, because they are open to misunderstanding of what they actually state or represent.
If you have any doubts, e-mail my direct quote above to Sean Olive.
Then ask him where the heck my scrim material angular data and LP HF total power loss is .

cheers,

AJ

Ask him yourself. I'll ask Kevin Voecks about the multisub paper as he sometimes joins our local AV group's gatherings.

In any case, as I stated before, it is advantageous to have the ability to move your LF source(s) independently of the mid/high frequency sources for best in room response.

Based on what?

The Harman presentation conclusion.

Yes, you referenced that it is not a perfect study. I agree.

I will also say that you may very well be right with your statement and that it is probably impossible to statistically predict the spatial optimization for the location of 2 LF sources. The 'ole saying "every room is different" has at least some validity.

There is a chance, based on the room and placement, that the LF source location would be best in the same location as the mid/high source location. As you said, you can not predict that it will be.

I have seen no study or data that says that having the LF source location the same as the best location for the mid/high source location will provide the best LF room response.

If the LF source(s) is independent, you can still locate them with the mid/high source, if that is best.

Now, on the good chance that you disagree with any of the above, are you saying that the location of the LF source is better to be kept with the mid/high frequency source more often than not? Maybe we are misunderstanding what you are stating.

Looking at the specs of the M1, it looks as though the crossover to the subwoofer portion is at 200hz.

Now, crossed that high, then I can understand the argument of keeping the subwoofer in the same location as the mains.

It said nothing of the sort whatsoever.
Not may or probably, it is acoustic reality. You still don't understand this.
You may want to look up "mid" and "low" frequency definitions.
My statements and the Harman article are about low frequencies.
Right, because it is a strawman position of your making and a fairly absurd one.
See above.
Yes, lower frequencies and midrange frequencies and higher frequencies are best kept together.
You are. Along with what the Harman and any other similar papers state.

Talk about off topic.

Bingo.
But that wasn't the argument.

You were going to explain what it does state. Please explain "acoustic reality". Every recording studio that I have been in that incorporates a subwoofer, doesn't place it with the mains. This keeping the sub/mains together can also not be predicted as being best. The Harman paper is specific to subwoofers and LFE. The LFE channel is defined as 120hz and below. Is that what you are talking about as well? Strawman of my making? You state that they should be kept together and asked for data to show that they shouldn't. I gave you something in regards to placement of subwoofers. The best location for the subwoofers in the Harman paper is certainly not where you want your mains. What can you give me in return that states otherwise other than your argumentative posts? Then do what you said you were and tell me what it does state and how it relates to the conclusion. The conclusion is very clear.

The room has much more effect on LF than mids/highs. I hope this is something we can agree on.

Give us the reason, explain it, rather than say "you are wrong". This hobby is subjective and objective....I'm open to reading and trying to understand opposing views no matter who is right or wrong.

A friendly discussion on opposing views, but you just want to say everything is wrong because someone disagrees with you. No wonder you've been banned on some boards.
Edited by cschang - 7/6/12 at 12:33am

It is possible that the optimal locations for the sub and mains is the same, in which case either separates or integrated would work.

It is also possible that the optimal locations are different, in which case the separates would perform better (as one part of the integrated would be placed sub optimally).

Separates are simply more flexible in placement than integrated solutions. The frequency with which either scenario occurs is less relevant .

I myself own a pair of KEF Q900's and a pair of KEF Q700's. These are currently running here in a stereo setup because I don't have currently a Surround A/V Receiver/Amp.
And I listen also to the Q500's but they sounded less full as both the Q700's and the Q900's.
If you are interested in good Stereo performance I would kindly recommend the KEF Q900's
And try to save and buy in a later stadium rears and a center speaker for your surround needs.

Not again. Einsteins insanity definition.
Post #9. You can't comprehend it, but that is irrelevant.
In spite of your confusion, bingo. Not midrange, not HF.
No you aren't, as demonstrated. Harman and my views are in complete agreement. Your inability to comprehend this not withstanding.
There are no 2 optimal or non-optimal spatial LF positions in real rooms.

We need more smilies here.

Ahh yes, rather than explain, you continue to just say I'm confused or don't comprehend. Also, as I asked above, the Harman paper speaks about LFE (120hz and below), is that what you are referring to? Do you agree that the room has more effect on LF than HF?

Let's try a different direction...

AJ, would you place your mains in the same location as the subwoofers as suggested by the conclusion of the Harman paper?
Yet you are saying they are best kept with the HF, correct? Is that optimal?
Edited by cschang - 7/6/12 at 9:25am

I personally think that would be an excellent choice for that size room; it should work out very well!

You may be making a mistake by trying to take this stuff too seriously. He repeatedly says he has proof or documentation of something or knows this or that when IMO no such thing ever turns out to be correct. His tactics remind me of old Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, who supposedly had a briefcase full of documentation which actually never quite proved anything.

Meanwhile, he demands that YOU come up with endless documentation to PROVE that your opinion is correct; it never stops. Who says that WE have to respond to his endless demands? It gets very tiresome and ridiculous after a while. I won't respond to him at all any more, because I don't think he knows one-tenth of what he claims and the stuff he tries to get us to take seriously proves it. I refuse to play his games. After a while responding to him starts to feel to me like punching a bag of marshmellows; there is never anything of substance there, so why bother with it.

He claims everyone but him is confused...but maybe he has that backwards.

Edited by commsysman - 7/7/12 at 7:19am

This is really interesting coming from someone who has repeatedly offered subwoofer integration advice that goes against the best practices the rest of the world agrees on

Meanwhile, I've enjoyed cschang and AJinFLA's civilized discussion because they are trying to get at a better understanding of subwoofer integration. (even if it has gone off topic)