KEF Owners Thread - Page 50

Thanks for the comments. I ended up ordering a pair of XQ40s for the loudspeakers, and a QX50 for the center. They should be here within a couple of weeks. I will use the 3005 satellites and the HTB2 to complete the 7.1 setup. I hope my Onkyo TX-NR 906 can drive all of these speakers. I'll post comments after I have everything hooked up.

Yep. The technical info is pretty slim now, too. The UniQ explanation has been reduced to a single paragraph that really doesn't explain it or its advantages that well.

Hopefully, they are still working on the site and stuff will be added.

Wow, you leap-frogged the iQs altogether, eh? Is your reason for keeping the 3005s for your surrounds due to aesthetics and/or space availability? Since you must have money to burn (XQs!), maybe you should buy 2 pair of the "older" iQ1s for your surrounds.

The receiver will be fine. But, to be honest, spending that money on the XQs but not replacing the sub doesn't make too much sense.

Ummmm...........

"Might" being an operative word regarding the (insert proper word here). Imaging is not really "the proper word". The word I am looking for describes how well a single speaker disappears and becomes non-localizable. You don't want your speaker, no matter its design, to just sound like a box that has sound coming out of it. This is an important goal in speaker design and it is more difficult to achieve with more conventional speakers that have multiple, non-coincidental drivers. Adding more drivers to a speaker has obvious benefits relative to a single full-range driver, but adding additional drivers also has deleterious consequences as far as this goal is concerned. A bit counterintuitively, a single point source speaker, whether it is a full range driver or a coincidentally-arrayed multi-driver like the UniQ, sidesteps this issue. So, any deviation from a single-point source should diminish the benefit. That's my theory, anyway. The Q1 is truly a single point source speaker. The Q7, with that additional driver, is not.

As far as the midbass and midrange is concerned, it stands to reason that having a driver specifically dedicated to the lower frequencies would, in relieving what then becomes the midwoofer from the duty of having to reproduce those lower frequencies, allow the midwoofer to reproduce that which it IS left to reproduce with more ease. Result should be more accuracy and clarity. That is one of the benefits of multiple driver speakers.

My XQs have the Hypertweeter. This, too, probably diminishes the effectiveness of the UniQ array. But they must have decided that its benefits outweighed this consequence. The benefits being, similarly to those provided by the lower driver of the Q7, increased range and improved accuracy/clarity. Interestingly, they have since done away with the Hypertweeter on both the XQ and REF series. Their new tweeter is supposed to be able to cover the same range that the tweeter/Hypertweeter combo could cover, with equal accuracy.

I got the XQ40s for their music performance. The type of music I listen to sounds great on them. I figured the 3005s should be fine for the surround speakers, since most of the work is done by the center anyway. I do have an issue with space, and the 3005s (which I have mounted on the matching KEF stands) look great and fit perfectly. That said, I agree with the other posters that putting the XQ40s in my setup necessitated a bigger center channel, so I think upgrading to the XQ50 made sense. I have thought about upgrading the sub, but I have neighbors to think of, so I can't get anything that will shake the building. As long as the sub sounds good, I'm satisfied. I don't need (and can't use) anything too powerful.

I hear you. Using the 3005s and getting a better sub makes more sense for you than spending the money on 2 pairs of Q1s, anyway. Even though a better sub might go lower, which could cause issues, theoretically you would calibrate it to the exact same level as your current sub, so the volume should be identical. But I'm not arguing that you MUST get a better sub. I understand. Jus' sayin'.

I've been thinking about a REL R-305. Assuming I calibrate my system properly, what differences would I notice using the REL instead of the HTB2? My understanding was that the subwoofer would become must less critical after adding the XQ40s to the system, since they can handle bass themselves (i.e. XQ40s set to "large" plus HTB2 would be more than sufficient). But maybe I was mistaken. Perhaps the subwoofer will make a bigger difference that I had thought.

Obviously, it's a better sub. Other than probably going lower, the SQ will be better. Most likely it will be more powerful (not sure) which equates to less effort, more finesse.

That HTB2 doesn't even have its own volume control, does it? I've never understood why this is never problematic.

If you are going to run your speakers as LARGE, yes, the sub will be doing less work with movies but it still has to cover the LFE channel. For 2 channel listening, obviously, if the sub is not used (which will be the case with the speakers set to LARGE), it is irrelevant.

BTW, I run my XQ5s (they're the old version of your XQ40s) as SMALL with an 80Hz crossover for movies and sub assisted music listening, both 2-channel and multichannel. I also quite often listen to the speakers using my receiver's 'pure direct' mode which allows me to run the speakers full-range without the subwoofer.

I am curious, what kind of subwoofer are you using? My understanding is that KEF is not known for their subs, which is why I am thinking about REL. Also, why have you set your XQ5s as small? Why not get as much sound out of them as possible? Is there a drawback to setting the speakers as large and also using a subwoofer?

Klipsch RSW15. You can see "my stuff" by clicking on "my stuff" in my signature. I do not live in that home anymore, but my equipment is the same. Much better room, now.



Well, their lower-end and mid-level subs are probably fine for music, actually, but they do not have much output down low so they are probably not the best for HT. But check THIS out. Almost everyone in these forums would give a finger for one of those. My sub does not go so deep, either. But it packs a wallop. I use my system for 95% music.



Because they ARE small. Their -3dB point is 45Hz. As is the XQ40s'.



I'm not sure what you mean by "drawback to setting the speakers as large and also using a subwoofer". There is a big difference in what is sent to the subwoofer with a SMALL vs. LARGE setting, with both 2-channel music and movies. Do you understand the purposes, consequences, and potential benefits of bass management?

I'm sure there are others on this forum who understand these issues much better than I do. I was thinking that if the front speakers are set to large, and the subwoofer is set to on, then the LFE channel would go to the sub (as well as any low frequency sounds in the surround channels), and any low frequency sounds in the front channels would go to the front speakers. As opposed to setting the front speakers to small, in which case any low frequency sounds in the front channels would also go to the sub. I'm just wondering if one setup is better than the other.

Yes, the LFE channel will always go to the sub no matter what size the speakers are set to. And, yes, the low frequencies below your crossover setting(s) from any speakers that are set to SMALL also go to the sub.

What are the benefits of setting a speaker to SMALL?

1.) The low frequencies from those channels that ARE set to SMALL are sent to a speaker, the subwoofer, that is specifically designed for reproducing low frequencies. In addition to usually having a larger driver a sub has a dedicated amp which is often much more powerful than the amps in a receiver. Low frequencies are harder for an amp to amplify than higher frequencies (see below).

2.) In setting a speaker's size to SMALL, you relieve it of the burden of having to reproduce the lowest frequencies. This results in cleaner reproduction of those frequencies that the speaker IS asked to reproduce. In the case of your XQ40s, even though this will not benefit the UniQ driver, the lower drivers will still benefit. So, with an 80Hz crossover, the lower drivers will be relieved of having to reproduce the full output of those frequencies below 80Hz. Yes, the receiver's crossover is not a brickwall and does have a slope (usually 12dB/octave) but still, the signal sent to the speakers will be down 12dB at 40Hz and even lower beyond that. My XQ5s still have fairly significant output at 32Hz. So, even though the speakers' -3dB point is 45Hz, they do still have significant output below that and they benefit from not having to reproduce frequencies even lower than their 45Hz -3dB point.

You will not be "wasting" the potential of the lower drivers with the speakers set to SMALL. The lower drivers in the XQ40s are crossed in with the UniQ driver at 400Hz. This means they WILL still be used significantly to reproduce those frequencies from (in the 80Hz crossover example) 80Hz to 400Hz. This is more than 2 octaves. The speakers will be able to reproduce those frequencies from 80Hz to 400Hz with more finesse than they would be able to were they burdened with frequencies lower than that. The main channels in a movie soundtrack can contain information that is as low as 20Hz, maybe even lower. Those speakers cannot reproduce that. So, it is best to let a subwoofer, which is specifically designed for it, reproduce those frequencies. In fact, if you set the speakers to LARGE, you will actually miss out on those frequencies encoded in the front channels that are below the speakers' capability. So, even if it is not capable of reproducing them all the way down to 20Hz (or lower), a sub will still be more capable than the speakers and you will be able to reproduce more of those lower frequencies encoded in those channels.

3.) When you set a channel to SMALL, the amplifier doesn't have to amplify the frequencies below the crossover setting. So, relieved of having to amplify those lowest frequencies (which I said above are the hardest to amplify), an amp can amplify those frequencies it IS asked to amplify more cleanly.


So, when your speakers are not LARGE (and XQ40s are not LARGE), setting the speakers to SMALL results in cleaner output from the amps and cleaner reproduction by the speakers. And, provided it IS capable of it, cleaner output of the lower frequencies by the sub. It is a win/win situation.

Now, generally, movies contain more low frequency info than music. At least a greater quantity of it. Whether you want to reproduce your 2-channel music with the aid of a sub is a personal preference. Theoretically, with a perfect setup that provides a smooth and flat transition between the main speakers and sub, the sub should only enhance the overall capability of the speakers+sub combo to reproduce music. But the reality in many instances, unless you make an effort to ensure a smooth transition (with EQ, for example), this is not always the case. Music listening is generally more critical listening than movie listening, so any faults between the speaker and sub integration are usually much more noticeable. So, many people prefer to listen to their 2-channel music traditionally, with 2 speakers, whether they are truly capable of full-range output or not. There is also an arguable but understandable 'purist' point of view that would posit that a subwoofer should not be used for 2-channel music; it was recorded for 2 speakers therefore that is how it should be reproduced.

Personally, as I said, I listen to 2-channel music both ways. Sometimes I supplement it with a sub (speakers = SMALL), sometimes not. Which way I might listen can depend upon the characteristics of the music itself or it might just depend upon what I feel like doing. My setup is far from perfect as far as having a flat overall frequency response is concerned. Sometimes, depending upon the music, I find the subwoofer to be distracting. My receiver can be set to a 'pure direct' mode which bypasses any bass management (and time management) settings and instead sends a full-range signal directly to the speakers. In doing so it bypasses much of the componentry within the receiver that is dedicated to processing the sound with the end result (supposedly) being cleaner, unmolested (if you will let me describe it that way) sound. Most receivers nowadays feature some sort of mode like this. The main intention of this mode is for 2-channel music reproduction without bass management. With my receiver, I can switch to this mode with the push of a button. So, I can leave my speakers set to SMALL all the time. Using this mode bypasses the bass management so the speaker size settings are irrelevant. Point being, I do not have to go into the receiver's setup screens to change the size to LARGE just to use them for 'full-range' 2-channel reproduction.

FYI:

The low "E" string of a standardly tuned 4-string bass guitar is tuned to ~41.2 Hz.
The low "B" string of a standardly tuned 5 or 6 string bass guitar is tuned to ~30.9 Hz.
The low "A" key of a standardly tuned 88-key piano is tuned to ~27.5 Hz.
Many other instruments and synthesizers produce considerably low frequencies as well.

So, an argument CAN be made that 2-channel music listening CAN benefit from the use of a subwoofer.


Upshot? Your XQ40s should be set to SMALL, particularly for movie reproduction. The 80Hz crossover that is recommended for your 3005s is also ideal for the XQ40s. How you use them for 2-channel music reproduction is up to you. Very most likely your receiver has a setting or mode which provides 'pure direct' output which should allow you to switch between SMALL and LARGE easily.


Drawbacks of setting speakers to SMALL? There aren't many. The main one is that you may lose a very slight amount of stereo bass information which MAY possibly be noticeable with 2-channel music. There IS stereo bass information below 80Hz in stereo music soundtracks. But the dogma is that bass below 80Hz is not localizable. This is one reason that 80Hz is oft-cited as an ideal crossover point for the subwoofer. In reality, in most of our imperfect listening environments, frequencies below 80Hz probably are localizable. So, you can detrimentally lose some of the stereo bass info as it is sent to the subwoofer to be reproduced in mono. And, as I said, if your room, setup, and subwoofer are not ideal, critical 2-channel listening with your subwoofer may not be ideal.


Hope this helps. Quiz on Monday.

Wow, thanks for the response. This is very helpful.

If you have a Denon receiver, you might find that with your speakers set to SMALL, the "pure direct" mode does not turn off bass management but continues to send low-frequencies to the sub while at the same time sending full-range signals to the mains. Put on some music with a lot of bass content and check for yourself by putting your ear to the sub during "pure direct" mode. With "pure direct" mode off and your speakers set to SMALL, the lows go only to the sub. Other manufacturers might implement PURE DIRECT differently.

For any of you who have IQ9]s are you happy with them? More specifically has anyone compared them to the aperion line? I am currently choosing between the two.

Also the package deal I am looking at has the psw 2500. Is this an okay amplifier?" 10 inches, 250 watts... for such a high retail price with those specs is it okay?

I can't speak to the sub, but I do love the IQ9s. I was comparing them to the Aperion 533-T (which I think has now become 5T), and I think the IQ9 is far supieror. They have 6.5" drivers (vs 5.25") and you can really hear the difference. The Aperion 633-T / 6T were too tall / large for my room, and so I wasn't able to listen to them. Since the IQ9s are so cheap right now, I think this is a great buying opportunity for some great speakers.

With my Denon in 'pure direct' mode bass management IS definitely bypassed. A full range signal IS sent to the front speakers when they are otherwise set to SMALL. What is sent to the sub out is also a full-range signal. But you can very easily turn the sub off by adjusting the receiver's subwoofer level trim all the way down past -12dB and it will go to 'OFF'. The receiver will then remember this 'OFF' setting for the 'pure direct' mode. Voila. Full-range output to the front channels with no subwoofer in the 'pure direct' mode. Many people do not realize this about their Denon.

And, yes, other receivers DO do it differently. I think that most do not have subwoofer output in their 'pure direct' mode. With my Denon (and probably others) you can use the 'pure direct' mode to send a full-range signal to the fronts while also using a sub to supplement the full-range fronts. This requires using the subwoofer's low-pass to adjust it to the front speakers' roll-off. But the sub out, as I pointed out above, can also be turned 'OFF' and that setting remembered. It is actually a nice feature. You can use a sub the 'old school' way or not.

As far as I know, ALL receivers' 'pure direct' modes bypass their bass management. I do not know which ones still send a full-range signal to the sub out in 'pure direct' mode, but my Denon does. I suspect most do not.

(I have a 3805--which Denon do you have?) This idea of turning off the sub (as you suggested) hadn't occurred to me, and I'll try it out!

One question, though: Are you saying that the sub gets a full-range signal only in "pure direct" mode? If so, how can you tell?

I have a 3803.

Yes, I am saying that the sub out outputs a full-range signal when the receiver is in 'pure direct' mode. And probably only in 'pure direct' mode. I have measured the sub in 'pure' direct' mode versus crossed at 80Hz.

I'm considering the following:

IQ9 - Front
IQ6 - Center
IQ7 - Rear

Is a Yamaha RX-V661 powerful enough for this setup ?
Should I bi-amp the IQ9's ?

Use is split equally between home theater and music.

SF

answered in other thread

That's an interesting theory, and it makes me wonder if I should get an iQ2c instead of an iQ6c. Or maybe even an iQ1, although I'm not sure I have space for it on the shelf under my TV. I have a pair of iQ5's right now, and I know the ideal thing would be to get a third one for my center, but that's not really an option for me.

I'd like to hear people's opinions on the iQ2c vs iQ6c, especially if you've heard both speakers. Obviously, the iQ2c has the edge in price, but are the additional drivers on the iQ6c worth the difference given that the center channel gets a lot of important midrange frequencies? Or do the additional drivers actually interfere with the UniQ driver to the point that the iQ2c is the way to go?

Well, I'd go with a iQ6c over an iQ2c, especially with those iQ5s. I would ONLY pair an iQ2c with the iQ1s.

First of all, take my "theory" with a grain of salt. It could be complete BS. Secondly, even if there is some truth to what I said, everything has to be weighed and considered. For center channel use, especially with the iQ5s, I'd go with an iQ6c. I think the extended range and relief from the lower frequencies is more important than maintaining a single-point source, particularly since we are talking about a 5.25" UniQ driver. There is plenty of center channel info below the 280Hz crossover point of the low frequency drivers. If you want to get pseudo-technical with what is ONLY my speculation, with the 2 drivers straddling the UniQ driver instead of both being below it, things are a bit different.

Unless you are really strapped for cash, the iQ6c is the way to go. It is so discounted now that, depending upon which color you need, it is less expensive than an iQ2c was 3 months ago. And even the black one is almost as inexpensive.

I managed to find a copy of the KEF manual for the Q series online (http://www.kef.com/dealer_section/pd...s%20manual.pdf), and it indicated that the crossover points for the Q7's are 120 Hz and 2800 Hz. The frequency response is listed as 35 Hz - 27 kHz, plus or minus 3 dB.

Yeah, that seems awfully low, but it might be correct. It doesn't even list the Q5's lower crossover and it definitely had one. The Q4's crossover is listed as 250Hz, but it had 5.25" drivers. The Q11 had a 120Hz crossover and a 500Hz crossover.

If the 120Hz is correct for the Q7, then the lower driver would only be reproducing those frequencies between 80Hz and 120Hz if you used an 80Hz crossover in your receiver. That not much at all. Less than an octave. So, the UniQ driver covers a wider range but is still relieved of 120HZ and below.

I think I asked, pbarach, but what is it you do not like about the Q7s? Have you tried the Q1s up front with some subwoofer supplemented 2-channel listening? And if you want to switch to Q1s up front, where in the heck are you going to get them?!?!?!?

Gotcha. Thanks for the input.

I had planned on getting a sub next, but with the iQs on clearance I think I should go ahead and get an iQ6, then surrounds (iQ1s), and then a sub. I'm worried they're going to get harder to find if I don't get one now.

I like the Q7's fine, but I am using them as the front speakers in a 5.1 system that is installed in a 12' x 13' room, and not at super-high volumes. I have Q1's as my surrounds. So I was thinking that perhaps I might get better imaging in 2.1 music if I moved the Q1's to the front (and the Q7's in the back). I haven't tried it yet, because it involves a lot of moving stuff around--so I thought I'd ask "the AVS Experts" first...

Here's a little question for you guys:

I've currently got a set of KEF 2005.2s, powered by a Denon AVR-987 receiver. What are your thoughts about upgrading my system with new speakers and a new receiver?

I've recently seen deals for Polk R50's for $59.99 a speaker online and I had thought about grabbing a few of those to replace my KEF's. I'm pretty much a speaker noob, so I'm curious as to whether the R50's would actually be an upgrade from what I have. From what I've read, they will probably be louder, but I might be losing some clarity overall. Any thoughts?

Basically, I'm trying to decide whether I should go ahead and grab some decently priced speakers ($600 or so total), or just wait until I can afford to purchase high-end speakers. If I'm not going to see a huge difference from my 2005's, then I will probably just wait.

Also, while I love my receiver and think it does a great job powering my speakers, it does not support any of the high resolution audio tracks (DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD). Am I going to see much of a difference if I ditch my Denon and go with something like an Onkyo SR606 that does support high resolution audio? Especially if I decide to keep my 2005's for right now. I have HD-DVD and BluRay players, so I would be able to utilize the high-def tracks.

Thanks for any help you guys can give me. Sorry if this is the wrong place to be asking.

I have a few Vintage KEF's...R-50 Cambridge Audio's(KEF Drivers), C20, 2X C55, Carina 2, Tangent M35, a few t-27's + a few assorted woofers. I also have a collection of Vintage Celestions,Missions + Tannoy..sold off the B&W's.I have large collection of vintage Japanese Audio + Some German+ Scandinavian + American...approx.40 prs. of speakers 34+ amps & receivers..etc.. 13 turntables...plus a few tube amps! I have a collection of American/Canadian drivers...approx 200 pieces new and used...to build a few wicked home theater sets..in the future! Most is in storage....as my wife doesn't like to see too much of it!!

My System:
LG 47" HD LCD TV 1080P
Toshiba Satelite Laptop Computer
Philips DVD
ONKYO TX-SV600 7.1
YAMAHA M-80 Amp
ADC EQ
Dual 1224 + 601
Sony TR-765 RR
Cambridge Audio R-50's
Celestion 25's x2 pr.
Celestion 1's
Celestion Center -homemade
Klipsch Rear Center
Acoustic Profile 10" Sub

Couldn't be THAT difficult. If you are curious that would be the FIRST thing to try, no? All that matters is your impressions, not what anyone 'thinks'.