AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › KEF Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

KEF Owners Thread - Page 9

post #241 of 6059
6/16/07 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobester View Post

Well there you have it. I know it was kind of a long rambling post but no response for three days!

You sorta answered your own question. At least you seemed to know more than most of us would about each of those speakers and all the caveats involved.

I'd say try them all, see what you think.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #242 of 6059
6/16/07 at 12:51pm
I have 205s up front and 201s in the rear. I have custom built stands so they match the same highth as my 205s. I must say they sound great. The best way to do it if you could afford it would be to by a pr. of the refs and give them a shot. If you don't like them send them back.
Reply
Reply
post #243 of 6059
6/16/07 at 2:45pm
Thanks for all the good responses. Good advise from all of you. I have not had a chance to try the other speakers yet but I did set the reference 103/3s (used as surrounds) on a couple of tall bar stools to elevate them about 18" above ear level. In my situation this definitely is better than on the stands with the tweeters about 1' below ear level. With the speakers raised the effect is less localization and more room filling. I listened to a concert dvd, a movie and a 2ch audio cd in 5ch stereo with the speaker elevated. All sounded very good but the most surprising was how the 2ch audio cd sounded in 5 ch stereo. I was not that aware of the surrounds but rather it just seemed the whole room was charged with sound. When the speakers were below ear level shifting just slightly on the couch one way or another would result in one of the surrounds overpowering the rest of the speakers. Before I permanatly mount anything I am going to find a way to try different heights. I will also try the other pairs of speakers. Since I have them I might as well play with them before I part with them. I really think the only way to better what I have in surrounds speaker wise would be something in the same era or line of Reference speakers as my mains. Anybody have a exta pair of Reference Threes they can bring over for a weekend. I would supply the marguritas. If not then I will try out what I have and get back to you on the results.

Tom
Reply
Reply
post #244 of 6059
6/16/07 at 4:39pm
Gee,
Looks like I'm the vintage guy here.

Living in an apartment at the moment, so the multi-channel system is in storage. I'm using a pair of KEF Q65s used for everything running off of a Rotel RX-1050.

Not sure I even care if I ever get back to 6.1 - I like the 2 channel simplicity.
Reply
Reply
post #245 of 6059
6/17/07 at 3:14pm
Hello KEF owners. Apologize for jumping in before I've purchased, but I could really use some help. I've been researching an audio setup for my living room (which has been turned into our home theater room). We originally had a Yamaha YSP-1100 soundbar - but it wasn't a good choice because the room has no right or back wall. It will now go to the family room where it should work well.

I'm definitely ready for better sound. I have an interesting dilemma - I've got to deal with HAF (husband approval factor). I'd gladly put some floorstand speakers, a full center channel and surrounds without a thought for aesthetics. He's having a fit. I'm intrigued by the KEF FiveTwos... either the model 7 or 11. Putting a subwoofer in isn't a big issue. It's the surrounds that get me in trouble (I could also go for nice fronts and a center speaker). My other choice is something like the KEF 2000 or 3000 series home theater set up ... all the little speakers. I could probably sneak those in behind the couch on the stands ... and then use the system in the den when I've got the husband ready for the next upgrade.

I really appreciate any advice I can get. I didn't post a general thread, because almost no one answers those. I've done a lot of homework, and really like the KEF products. Budget isn't a big issue, but since I'm new to all this - I find going low/medium end initially helps me get ready for the next upgrade.

Here's a pic of the current setup (71" Samsung DLP 1080p with various HD sources). I know - it looks like Blockbuster went to Ikea ... this is our temporary setup until we design a built in. But, I don't want to wait for that to get some decent sound here! Thanks for any advice, and sorry for the long post.

Reply
Reply
post #246 of 6059
6/17/07 at 5:07pm
Several people asked a while back for comments from XQ series owners. For about a year and a half, I've owned the XQ5s powered by an NAD 763. What most impresses me about the XQ5s is their staging/presence -- that quality in the showroom immediately sold me on the XQs (I bought the XQ5s unheard after just hearing the XQ1s). The other quality that distinguishes the XQ5s (and the XQ1s), as others have commented on, is the super tweeter and natural-sounding mid-range. All together, for me the result is music right there in front of you, so pure and real you can feel the instruments. There was no other speaker, including B&Ws in that price range that came close in that tonal sensation. I had to jump up many thousands in both speaker and power price to find that quality of sound. For that reason, I'm a big XQ fan.

I purchased the XQ5s because I wanted the XQ1 sound but with better bass, and I've not regretted it. Alas, although better than the XQ1, the weak bass has been a problem with my XQ5s as well, as others have mentioned, and is not totally resolved with a subwoofer. To me, it's not just the low-lows -- if it were only that, a good subwoofer would be the answer -- but that the XQs don't handle the high-lows well, so finding a good crossover ends up sacrificing tight bass response for bass whimpiness. To me, the worst of the XQs is that the highs and mids slightly overpower the lows which results in a sound that is a tad bright, and I'm not a fan of brightness at all -- I like flat or slightly warm, and that's not my XQ5s.

Several months ago I purchased the XQ2 center, and was surprised how much better it performed than the Q6 I was using. The difference in subtle sounds and clarity is profound with the XQ2 -- what a terrific center speaker! My surrounds are Kef eggs, which reproduce an HD 5.1 "whoosh" but do little else than muddy the waters. I wonder how much mileage I'll get by replacing them with XQ1s, if I will only use them for films and TV, not for serious music listening?

Recently, I disconnected the NAD 763 (100 watts/channel) and am now using the new Yamaha RX-V2700 (140 watts/channel). I recently purchased the Sony 46v2500 LCD and wanted something with an HDMI, and I also wanted to try out the Internet radio. With the Yamaha, the sound is way too processed, but is tolerable with the Direct Effect button pushed whenever listening to CDs. But this is interesting: the bass response is much better with the Yamaha Direct Effect, which ignores the subwoofer and pulls all power into the two front speakers only, as compared to the NAD or Yamaha's Straight Effect, which is also unprocessed sound but redirects the lows to the subwoofer. I assume the improved fullness is due to the increased power? Or is there something I'm not considering? I'm not surprised that the low bass is not as tight as when I use the subwoofer, but the high-lows are there like they weren't before, and so the overall effect is that the XQs are less bright (though the quality of the sound was slightly better with the NAD, I think).

Anyone else have experience with increased power to their XQs? Does bi-amping help?

Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 6059
6/17/07 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Recently, I disconnected the NAD 763 (100 watts/channel) and am now using the new Yamaha RX-V2700 (140 watts/channel).

But this is interesting: the bass response is much better with the Yamaha Direct Effect, which ignores the subwoofer and pulls all power into the two front speakers only, as compared to the NAD or Yamaha's Straight Effect, which is also unprocessed sound but redirects the lows to the subwoofer. I assume the improved fullness is due to the increased power? Or is there something I'm not considering? I'm not surprised that the low bass is not as tight as when I use the subwoofer, but the high-lows are there like they weren't before, and so the overall effect is that the XQs are less bright (though the quality of the sound was slightly better with the NAD, I think).

I think what you're hearing is that different components do have their own sonic signature; not all amps/receivers sound the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Anyone else have experience with increased power to their XQs? Does bi-amping help?

I use a ROTEL RB-1080 @ 200w/channel for my front 2 channels and I DO think my XQ5s sound better with more power behind them than just my Denon receiver's amps. I think the XQ5s (and probably the whole series) crave power. I've heard a pair of XQ5s with a large amount of power, delivered from some really high-end equipment, behind them, and thought they sounded just incredible. The bass was so much better than what I'm used to with mine. So, yeah, they like a lot of power.

Bi-amping? It's probably not worthwhile to simply passively bi-amp them. I'm sure that an active bi-amp, done properly, would sound great.
Reply
Reply
post #248 of 6059
6/17/07 at 5:46pm
Hi Sivadselim. The Yamaha lets you to turn their 7.1 channel into a 5.1 with the other two channels used to bi-amp the front speakers. Is that what you mean by active bi-amp? If so, how might it not be done properly -- you remove the bridges and hook it up, no?

Enartlocnhoj
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 6059
6/17/07 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Hi Sivadselim. The Yamaha lets you to turn their 7.1 channel into a 5.1 with the other two channels used to bi-amp the front speakers. Is that what you mean by active bi-amp? If so, how might it not be done properly -- you remove the bridges and hook it up, no?

That would be passive bi-amping. The only thing it does for you is get you a little more headroom (~3dB). It's basically the same as increasing (but not doubling) the power to the speakers. Even with the bridges removed, the crossover, electronically, still completes a circuit.

With a passive bi-amp, the amplifiers still have to amplify a full-range signal and the speaker's internal crossover is what sends the correct frequencies to the proper drivers. Most people frown upon passive bi-amping with a receiver's "extra" amps, because receivers usually have a single power supply which is shared by all the amps. Using 4 amps, instead of 2, which share a power supply is not the same as "doubling" the power to the speakers. If you were going to passively bi-amp, I would recommend you at least use outboard, dedicated amplifiers.

Active bi-amping means using upstream external crossovers that separate the frequencies before the amplifier stage. The amplifiers then only have to amplify certain frequencies and are used to drive the speaker's drivers that are no longer connected to the speaker's internal crossover. With an active bi-amp setup you are able to tweak the amount of power that goes to each driver much more specifically and precisely, allowing you to completely "tune" the output of the speaker. Active bi-amping is usually a pretty expensive endeavor.

Active bi-amping is much, much different from simply passively bi-amping. Most audiophiles do not consider passive bi-amping to be bi-amping at all.

I would not recommend you passively bi-amp with the "extra" 2 amps in your receiver. But in the end, it's your decision.

You can do a search on passive bi-amping, active bi-amping, passive versus active bi-amping, and read about all the caveats involved.
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 6059
6/18/07 at 7:40am
Oh well, I guess it was too easy that a simple bi-amp would bring more power to each speaker. Thanks, Sivad, I appreciate the reality check.

Sounds like I need to purchase a separate amp. Or is there anything I can do with my NAD in the meantime to give my speakers more power? Any other options I'm not aware of?

Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 6059
6/18/07 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Several people asked a while back for comments from XQ series owners. For about a year and a half, I've owned the XQ5s powered by an NAD 763. What most impresses me about the XQ5s is their staging/presence -- that quality in the showroom immediately sold me on the XQs (I bought the XQ5s unheard after just hearing the XQ1s). The other quality that distinguishes the XQ5s (and the XQ1s), as others have commented on, is the super tweeter and natural-sounding mid-range. All together, for me the result is music right there in front of you, so pure and real you can feel the instruments. There was no other speaker, including B&Ws in that price range that came close in that tonal sensation. I had to jump up many thousands in both speaker and power price to find that quality of sound. For that reason, I'm a big XQ fan.

I purchased the XQ5s because I wanted the XQ1 sound but with better bass, and I've not regretted it. Alas, although better than the XQ1, the weak bass has been a problem with my XQ5s as well, as others have mentioned, and is not totally resolved with a subwoofer. To me, it's not just the low-lows -- if it were only that, a good subwoofer would be the answer -- but that the XQs don't handle the high-lows well, so finding a good crossover ends up sacrificing tight bass response for bass whimpiness. To me, the worst of the XQs is that the highs and mids slightly overpower the lows which results in a sound that is a tad bright, and I'm not a fan of brightness at all -- I like flat or slightly warm, and that's not my XQ5s.

Several months ago I purchased the XQ2 center, and was surprised how much better it performed than the Q6 I was using. The difference in subtle sounds and clarity is profound with the XQ2 -- what a terrific center speaker! My surrounds are Kef eggs, which reproduce an HD 5.1 "whoosh" but do little else than muddy the waters. I wonder how much mileage I'll get by replacing them with XQ1s, if I will only use them for films and TV, not for serious music listening?

Recently, I disconnected the NAD 763 (100 watts/channel) and am now using the new Yamaha RX-V2700 (140 watts/channel). I recently purchased the Sony 46v2500 LCD and wanted something with an HDMI, and I also wanted to try out the Internet radio. With the Yamaha, the sound is way too processed, but is tolerable with the Direct Effect button pushed whenever listening to CDs. But this is interesting: the bass response is much better with the Yamaha Direct Effect, which ignores the subwoofer and pulls all power into the two front speakers only, as compared to the NAD or Yamaha's Straight Effect, which is also unprocessed sound but redirects the lows to the subwoofer. I assume the improved fullness is due to the increased power? Or is there something I'm not considering? I'm not surprised that the low bass is not as tight as when I use the subwoofer, but the high-lows are there like they weren't before, and so the overall effect is that the XQs are less bright (though the quality of the sound was slightly better with the NAD, I think).

Anyone else have experience with increased power to their XQs? Does bi-amping help?

Marjorie

I would echo a lot of what sivadselim said in response to your questions. I have had some experience with XQ5s and XQ1s. I started out playing with them with a Pioneer receiver. I then moved up to a Sherbourn 200w x 5ch amp with the pioneer and noticed a big difference. And then later an Aragon Stage One processor and again a big jump up in performance. These improvements in electronics would make any quality speaker sound better but I have read various owner reviews on different Kef models on how they are especially responsive to better electronics. In the narrow area of bass response better amplification did provide better bass, in my opinion, and may explain your experience with the Yamaha 2700 which would be on my short list of receivers if I were buying one.
I have a very good sub and I use it even when listening to 2 ch direct stereo regardless of the mains. It provides the lower and better bass while allowing the mains to perform better on the rest. At least that is my experience.
I should say I enjoyed the XQ speakers very much when I was using them with the pioneer. You do not have to have separates for them to impress. They do have the ability to respond to upgrades in your other components though.

Tom
Reply
Reply
post #252 of 6059
6/18/07 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazza View Post

Hello KEF owners. Apologize for jumping in before I've purchased, but I could really use some help. I've been researching an audio setup for my living room (which has been turned into our home theater room). We originally had a Yamaha YSP-1100 soundbar - but it wasn't a good choice because the room has no right or back wall. It will now go to the family room where it should work well.

I'm definitely ready for better sound. I have an interesting dilemma - I've got to deal with HAF (husband approval factor). I'd gladly put some floorstand speakers, a full center channel and surrounds without a thought for aesthetics. He's having a fit. I'm intrigued by the KEF FiveTwos... either the model 7 or 11. Putting a subwoofer in isn't a big issue. It's the surrounds that get me in trouble (I could also go for nice fronts and a center speaker). My other choice is something like the KEF 2000 or 3000 series home theater set up ... all the little speakers. I could probably sneak those in behind the couch on the stands ... and then use the system in the den when I've got the husband ready for the next upgrade.

I really appreciate any advice I can get. I didn't post a general thread, because almost no one answers those. I've done a lot of homework, and really like the KEF products. Budget isn't a big issue, but since I'm new to all this - I find going low/medium end initially helps me get ready for the next upgrade.

Here's a pic of the current setup (71" Samsung DLP 1080p with various HD sources). I know - it looks like Blockbuster went to Ikea ... this is our temporary setup until we design a built in. But, I don't want to wait for that to get some decent sound here! Thanks for any advice, and sorry for the long post.



LOL, I find it funny that the husband is the one not wanting the Surround Sound System.

I recently purchased the Kef KHT 3500 series and am very happy with them as far as sound and quality. (Fronts and center channel all wall mounted, rears on the Kef stand)

My wife approved these as she did not want the large floor stand speakers and she liked the look and design of the sub. Got them from *******.com.

Good luck
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 6059
6/18/07 at 3:52pm
Thanks, tufferd. It is an odd situation in our house (plus he's a tech nerd, so it makes no sense!).

I'm leaning to the 3005 set for now - because I can always move them to the computer room when I'm ready for the next jump.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 6059
6/18/07 at 7:50pm
Shazza, a girl after my own heart. Your husband is a lucky man.
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 6059
6/18/07 at 8:27pm
Thanks, Tom. It's good to hear others confirm my suspicions. BTW, your system sounds awesome. Are you still using the XQs, or another speaker?

For the moment, I have an NAD 763 (100 watts per channel) just sitting here. Is there a way I can safely use it to augment the Yamaha's power until I decide on some purchases? Can a receiver to be used as an amp to another receiver?

Thanks,
Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #256 of 6059
6/19/07 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Thanks, Tom. It's good to hear others confirm my suspicions. BTW, your system sounds awesome. Are you still using the XQs, or another speaker?

For the moment, I have an NAD 763 (100 watts per channel) just sitting here. Is there a way I can safely use it to augment the Yamaha's power until I decide on some purchases? Can a receiver to be used as an amp to another receiver?

Thanks,
Marjorie

Marjorie

In answer to your first question I am currently using the Kef reference speakers I have refferered to earlier. I have owned Kef speakers (among others) for quite a few years.
In answer to your second question I have a Denon 3806 in my living room system. I am using it with a Klipsch THX Ultra II 5.1 system. It is connected to a Luxman 2ch receiver that I am using as an amp to power some outside speakers. Works ok. However if you are wanting to use your NAD to augment the Yamaha on the same speakers or group of speaker that could be more problematic. Doesn't really sound practical to me. Hopefully someone more versed in receivers and amplification will chime in. If not, ask your question in the amp/receiver area and you will probably get some good advise.

Tom
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 6059
6/19/07 at 3:39pm
Thanks, Tom. Apparently there's no way to augment the Yamaha -- any external power immediately shuts off its internal amp.

Alas, I've never heard any Kef Reference speakers. How much better is the sound than the XQs?

Thanks,
Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #258 of 6059
6/19/07 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Thanks, Tom. Apparently there's no way to augment the Yamaha -- any external power immediately shuts off its internal amp.

How did you try to do it? There probably IS a bit if a convoluted way to utilize the NAD in a passive bi-amp situation, but it's not really worth doing, or even advisable, to be honest. Maybe you could use it for a separate Zone, if you're just dyin' to use it?



Quote:
Alas, I've never heard any Kef Reference speakers. How much better is the sound than the XQs?

The sound of the older Reference series was incredible. Was it worth the price difference? That's debatable.

Check out THIS link to the new Reference/2 series. They've dropped the hypertweeter (the old Reference series had the same hypertweeter as the XQs), altogether, as the new tweeter is apparently able to cover the entire range, now. This is a good thing, design-wise, as the hypertweeter actually detracts a bit from the whole "coincident array" idea of the UniQ driver. There is also new XQ series coming down the pipes and I would expect it to have abandoned the hypertweeter, as well.
Reply
Reply
post #259 of 6059
6/19/07 at 8:11pm
[quote=sivadselim]How did you try to do it? There probably IS a bit if a convoluted way to utilize the NAD in a passive bi-amp situation, but it's not really worth doing, or even advisable, to be honest. Maybe you could use it for a separate Zone, if you're just dyin' to use it?

(First time trying requotes...sorry for the inelegant format.)

Anyway, we looked in the Yamaha manual where it said that any input from any external source automatically disabled the Yamaha's internal amp. It won't even accept a passive bi-amp from an outside source without disabling its own.

However, I can do the reverse -- I can add an external amp (or even add the Yamaha) to the NAD without losing the NAD's 100 watts/channel. But the Yamaha has the Internet Radio I want to test out and other computer functions, plus I like the HDMI for the TV.

But unless the Internet functions are fabulous, I'm going back to the NAD, will sell the Yamaha and purchase an amp to augment NAD's power to the XQs. I don't know what I can do about the HDMI without buying a whole new receiver, though.

Thanks for the Reference links. Losing the hypertweeter is a good design choice, if nothing else.

Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #260 of 6059
6/19/07 at 8:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Thanks, Tom. Apparently there's no way to augment the Yamaha -- any external power immediately shuts off its internal amp.

Marjorie

Oops. Something is definitely wrong with what you are trying. What ever it was don't do it again. Sounds like you are in some way trying to input amplification and that is not going to improve anything but it may damage your yamaha. I don't see how using the NAD is going to improve anything using it downstream either.
Find another use for the NAD (or yamaha) or sell it and use the proceeds to invest in a 2 ch amp, a couple of monoblocks or a multi ch amp. Do a little research and pick one up off of a fellow forum member or audiogon and you will probably be able to get most of your money back later on if you decide to try something else. From most of what I have read the 2700 is a good receiver. Be careful.
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 6059
6/19/07 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Anyway, we looked in the Yamaha manual where it said that any input from any external source automatically disabled the Yamaha's internal amp. It won't even accept a passive bi-amp from an outside source without disabling its own.

No, you'd use the Yamaha's front pre-outputs and connect them to one of the NAD's inputs. So there'd be no input to the Yammy. The output would be from the Yammy, the input would be to the NAD.

But there's still really no worthwhile reason to add the NAD.
Reply
Reply
post #262 of 6059
6/20/07 at 1:17am
Hi All, need some advice ...
I can get some Q series speakers (set of Q1's and a Q9c) second hand at fairly good prices ...

My main system currently consists of:
2 x Q7 L+R
1 x Reference model 100 centre
2 x iQ8ds surrounds
Q15 rear centres

Should I go for the set of Q1's (in perfect condition) at about two thirds the price of a new set of iQ3's? These would be to replace the black Q15's (will probably sound similar, but would look nicer as they are also Dark Apple like my Q7's and iQ8ds's).

Should I go for the Q9c (at less than half the price of new iQ6c) to replace the Ref 100? Should I rather try to find a Q10c or get a iQ6c?

Whatever speakers I replace will move to a secondary system.

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #263 of 6059
6/20/07 at 10:25am
Fortunately we haven't actually hooked up anything yet. It seems like such a waste, though, to be sitting here with 100 watts/channel NAD and 140 watts/channel Yamaha, and not be able to somehow combine their output to test the speakers, just to hear if the added power improves XQs' performance to my liking or not. The tao of physics.

I will definitely be selling one of the receivers, if not both. I'm still deciding which one to keep. To me, Tom, the Yahama is more for people who like processed sound and visuals, its features are wonderful for playing around. Me, I'm playing around trying to make the Yamaha sound and visuals as unprocessed as possible. When I do that, I don't know that I've gained anything over the less powerful NAD, and in fact I think I'm losing some of my highest highs, though I may be getting more of the mid-bass than I did before. As Sivad commented, that may just be Yamaha's sonic signature.

Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #264 of 6059
6/20/07 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendrik vR View Post

Hi All, need some advice ...
I can get some Q series speakers (set of Q1's and a Q9c) second hand at fairly good prices ...

My main system currently consists of:
2 x Q7 L+R
1 x Reference model 100 centre
2 x iQ8ds surrounds
Q15 rear centres

Should I go for the set of Q1's (in perfect condition) at about two thirds the price of a new set of iQ3's? These would be to replace the black Q15's (will probably sound similar, but would look nicer as they are also Dark Apple like my Q7's and iQ8ds's).

Should I go for the Q9c (at less than half the price of new iQ6c) to replace the Ref 100? Should I rather try to find a Q10c or get a iQ6c?

You should get the Q series (not iQ series) speakers that will match the rest of your speakers.

The Q1 does have the same size 6.5" UniQ drivers as the iQ3s, but the Q1s will match your Q7s better. The iQ9c actually has the same 6.5" UniQ driver as the Q1s and Q7s, as opposed to the iQ6c, which has 5.25" drivers.

The Q1s and Q9c are definitely a better match for what you already have.
Reply
Reply
post #265 of 6059
6/20/07 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Fortunately we haven't actually hooked up anything yet. It seems like such a waste, though, to be sitting here with 100 watts/channel NAD and 140 watts/channel Yamaha, and not be able to somehow combine their output to test the speakers, just to hear if the added power improves XQs' performance to my liking or not. The tao of physics.

Get over it.

What you want to do is not only not worth the trouble, it's ill-advised.

Do you have any idea how much the output, theoretically, would increase if you COULD somehow magically add the NAD's 100watts/channel to the Yammy's 140watts/channel?

You have to DOUBLE the wattage to get a 3dB increase in volume. I don't know how to calculate the answer for 140+100 watts, but the output increase would be considerably less than 3dB.

Hide the NAD in the closet or something.

Or better yet, use it for a bedroom or kitchen system.
Reply
Reply
post #266 of 6059
6/20/07 at 4:26pm
Ugh... so adding the Yamaha (as an amp) to the NAD receiver could potentially hurt one or the other? Plus, it would not even result in a 140+100 = 250 watt/channel system?

What if I just hooked up the XQs to a new 250 watts/channel system, and compared it to the 140 watts/system I'm listening to now? That's almost double the wattage, but at equal volumes there'll be little if any significant diff in the mid-bass?

I hate physics.

A kitchen system? I'd have speakers on either side of my microwave!

Marjorie
Reply
Reply
post #267 of 6059
6/20/07 at 7:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

What if I just hooked up the XQs to a new 250 watts/channel system, and compared it to the 140 watts/system I'm listening to now? That's almost double the wattage, but at equal volumes there'll be little if any significant diff in the mid-bass?

Marjorie

There is a quantity and quality to amplification. Some people may spend a lot of money on a relatively low wattage tube amp. You don't necessarily have to have 300 or 200 watts to make a speaker sound it's best. It is not that simple. It is not true that at equal volumes amps of different quantity or quality or going to sound the same. Not at all. It is true that all receivers or processors leave their signature. The best ones leave the least amount of signature and sound the closest to neutral. Separates are going to produce the best sound but that can be an expensive road to go down. If you are not satisfied with what you are hearing now it would be nice if you could try out a quality amp with your receivers to see if that gets you where you want to be. Try it with both receivers. You might want to visit the receiver /processor area of this forum and do some reading.
HDMI is a nice feature but you can get around it. I do. My processor does not have hdmi and I manage quite well.

Tom
Reply
Reply
post #268 of 6059
6/20/07 at 8:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlazoff View Post

Ugh... so adding the Yamaha (as an amp) to the NAD receiver could potentially hurt one or the other? Plus, it would not even result in a 140+100 = 250 watt/channel system?

There is no way to connect both the NAD and the Yammy such that the wattage of each is additive.

If you connect the Yammy to the NAD's pre-outs, then all you'd get is the Yammy's 140watts/channel. The NAD's 100watts doesn't pass through the low-level pre-outs.

Likewise, if you connect the NAD to the Yammy's pre-outs, then all you'd get is the NAD's 100watts/channel.

In either case, the first component serves as a pre-amp and its wattage is simply not used.
Reply
Reply
post #269 of 6059
6/20/07 at 10:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

How did you try to do it? There probably IS a bit if a convoluted way to utilize the NAD in a passive bi-amp situation, but it's not really worth doing, or even advisable, to be honest. Maybe you could use it for a separate Zone, if you're just dyin' to use it?




The sound of the older Reference series was incredible. Was it worth the price difference? That's debatable.

Check out THIS link to the new Reference/2 series. They've dropped the hypertweeter (the old Reference series had the same hypertweeter as the XQs), altogether, as the new tweeter is apparently able to cover the entire range, now. This is a good thing, design-wise, as the hypertweeter actually detracts a bit from the whole "coincident array" idea of the UniQ driver. There is also new XQ series coming down the pipes and I would expect it to have abandoned the hypertweeter, as well.

I recently purchased a new pair of KEF Ref 205/2s after listening to a lot of speakers. I was fairly biased towards KEF after owning a pair of 104/2s. The midrange is fantastic (warm sounding). The 205/2s are a great full range speaker. I bet the new QX series will be really good. They likely will use similar technology to the REF line (minus the cabinets/finish/etc.). I'm currently waiting for a new center channel speaker to integrate with the 205/2s (KEF is just starting to release these). I had a friend over recently to listen to these. He was blown away by the dynamics and full range of the Ref 205/2s. They are not cheap, but really a long term investment (at least for me). SJ
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 6059
6/21/07 at 5:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJHT View Post

I recently purchased a new pair of KEF Ref 205/2s after listening to a lot of speakers. I was fairly biased towards KEF after owning a pair of 104/2s. The midrange is fantastic (warm sounding). The 205/2s are a great full range speaker. I bet the new QX series will be really good. They likely will use similar technology to the REF line (minus the cabinets/finish/etc.). I'm currently waiting for a new center channel speaker to integrate with the 205/2s (KEF is just starting to release these). I had a friend over recently to listen to these. He was blown away by the dynamics and full range of the Ref 205/2s. They are not cheap, but really a long term investment (at least for me). SJ

SJ
I wish there was a dealer around here that carried those. I would really like to hear them. I would like to be able to compare them to the Reference series I have. Them again, maybe it would be better if I don't hear them. What electronics are you using with them? You know, I wouldn't mind seeing some pictures if you get the chance. How about posting a few.

Tom
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › KEF Owners Thread