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

KEF Owners Thread - Page 169

post #5041 of 6029
4/29/12 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweElite View Post

What you guys think of the Tweeter in the REF series ? Saw some review that the stated that the tweeter was not "top-notch" especially compared to the midrange and bass.

Out of curiosity, which review was this? How was the speaker's response tested? Was this an anechoic lab result, or in a listening room environment, and what sort of amp, pre-amp, and source were used? Lots of variables can affect the outcome, not to mention user-specific preferences for speakers. Personally, I prefer the more laid back, smooth sound of KEFs. I'm not a fan of overly aggressive high end in a speaker. I've experienced a lot of that with neo tweeters in car audio, myself.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #5042 of 6029
4/29/12 at 12:07pm
Yeah, i think i need to do some more listening.

I just sawthat the Blade. Model uses Al tweeter instead of titanium as the ref does. I think only reason is because of cost...




Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Most pro reviews are near worthless......its just paid advertising...........if you have the budget to buy a speaker like this, then best thing to do is to go demo them for yourself, because your going to get biased opinions, in a KEF thread....all the Kef owners here are most likely fans of the product and their speakers. The reference line from Kef regardless though is a quality product. I sold em for years, and still own quite a few pairs of their products. I personally though prefer their XQ monitors and older Reference series back from the 90's for various reasons I posted previously in this thread.
Reply
Reply
post #5043 of 6029
4/29/12 at 1:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweElite View Post

Yeah, i think i need to do some more listening.

I just sawthat the Blade. Model uses Al tweeter instead of titanium as the ref does. I think only reason is because of cost...




The reference "tweeter" is older than the current Q/R series speakers and also the XQ line as well. The new aluminum tweeters use a waveguide for better dispersion patterns. As to which costs more to produce, the older titanium tweeter, vs the newer aluminum tweeters with the waveguide.....its probably roughly the same in reality. Too many people get caught up in the "tweeter".....which only plays a few octaves of of high frequency energy.....the most important aspect of any speaker is the midrange driver. Id rather have a speaker with a high quality midrange driver with an average tweeter vs. most of the speakers that boast a supposed high end tweeter with an average midrange response. ALot of people dont even realize that alot of the frequencies they describe as light an airy, or void of any graininess etc etc etc......the majority of the reason for that smooth sound is because of the midrange driver, not the tweeter. I was dealing with one gentleman who loved to tell me how cymbal and tympani crashes sounded so smooth and relaxed because of an exitic material tweeter.......only to find out that the majority of the frequencies he thought were played by the tweeter, were in reality played by the midrange driver.

95% of the program material you hear is from 125hz to 3 or 4khz, which is basically covered by the midrange driver.

With this said, IMO as long as the tweeter is smooth up to about 16khz without any break up modes before starting to roll off and has a uniform dispersion pattern matching the midrange driver, then thats all thats necessary for reference quality sound.
Reply
Reply
post #5044 of 6029
4/29/12 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

***The new aluminum tweeters use a waveguide for better dispersion patterns.

While KEF's propaganda calls it the "Tangerine waveguide," that is technically incorrect. The "Tangerine" piece is actually a phase plug. Just like the piece in the throat of a compression driver.

The midwoofer cone is the waveguide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

With this said, IMO as long as the tweeter is smooth up to about 16khz without any break up modes before starting to roll off and has a uniform dispersion pattern matching the midrange driver,***

Especially the latter. And that (at least when the tweeter is stout enough to come in where the woofer's directivity has narrowed to the angle created by the cone/waveguide) is the primary advantage of the Uni-Q. (As well as older but still good coincident designs, such as Tannoy's venerable Dual Concentric. And even some non-coincident designs, such as the directivity-matching waveguide in front of the Revel Salon 2's tweeter.)
Reply
Reply
post #5045 of 6029
4/29/12 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

I personally think the iQ60c is a better deal, and the cabinet and driver is a small step up IMO too. Regardless both are more than competent and will do a great job, so Id go with the iQ60c and pocket the $60 saved.

Thanks so much!
Reply
Reply
post #5046 of 6029
4/29/12 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

...neither the R300 or 201/2 though is technically a point source monitor.

Could you please elaborate? I thought they are all using UniQ drivers?
Reply
Reply
post #5047 of 6029
4/30/12 at 7:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronosx View Post

Could you please elaborate? I thought they are all using UniQ drivers?

2 drivers on the front face, the bass driver covers some of the midrange as well........
Reply
Reply
post #5048 of 6029
5/1/12 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

2 drivers on the front face, the bass driver covers some of the midrange as well........

Written like, well, a white-paper jockey.

The specified woofer/Uni-Q xover on the Ref 201/2 is 450Hz. On the R300, 500Hz.

That's not high enough, given the center-center spacing, to cause any material lobing. So both are effectively point-sources.
Reply
Reply
post #5049 of 6029
5/1/12 at 3:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Written like, well, a white-paper jockey.

The specified woofer/Uni-Q xover on the Ref 201/2 is 450Hz. On the R300, 500Hz.

That's not high enough, given the center-center spacing, to cause any material lobing. So both are effectively point-sources.

Yep, the specified xover points are given as 450 and 500hz respectively, but its still far enough into the midrange where I would not call it a true point source monitor, because they aren't, also the bass drivers use 12db slope vs. 24db as on the other Reference speakers on the bass drivers, so there is more than enough energy bleedthrough to audibly go well beyond 1khz, and its quite noticeable, especially nearfield. I agree, there isnt any audible program lobing like you would find in a horizontal MTM center channel, but its off axis response isnt as solid as a pointsource monitor like an XQ10 or 20, or R100, or Q300 or RDM-1 or 2,iQ10 30 or any speaker utilizing one driver thats capable of covering down to the 100hz range or lower. The sweet spot for listening with a fully coherant audio image is a bit more constrained with them I find or any other multidriver speaker. Some people will notice, some people won't.
Reply
Reply
post #5050 of 6029
5/2/12 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Yep, the specified xover points are given as 450 and 500hz respectively, but its still far enough into the midrange where I would not call it a true point source monitor,

And you would simply be wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

The sweet spot for listening with a fully coherant audio image is a bit more constrained with them I find or any other multidriver speaker. Some people will notice, some people won't.

You're listening with your eyes, not your ears.

Funny thing is, if actually you believed what you write you would have left KEF long ago. KEF simply doesn't make a single-UniQ speaker that's capable of reproducing the dynamics of real music. They're just too small, and because of that too inefficient. No 3", 4.5.", 5", or 6.5" driver can do that. Maybe if they took the Q900's Uni-Q and made it into a standmount, one could say that it's borderline adequate. One might even say you would gravitate to speakers like my reference mains, which use 12" Tannoy Dual Concentric drivers and are point-sources from 40Hz up...

However, KEF's research seems to have led them into believing that a ~5" midrange/waveguide offers the current best compromise of wide dispersion and controlled directivity (see, e.g. Blade, R-Series), it follows that they need to employ helper drivers to cover the bass. While one can reasonably argue the merits of that position (Tannoy certainly would, as would Dr. Earl Geddes and others; both would say directivity control down lower is desirable), but KEF is not alone in having reached that conclusion. Two of the few other major commercial loudspeakers maker doing actual research into sound quality, Harman International and Genelec, seem to have reached a similar conclusion. Look at Harman's flagship Revels and also their flagship JBL Pro passive studio monitor, or Genelec's trick new MDC coincident driver.

But what follows from the 5" mid/tweet is the need for helper woofers in the bass, so that the main driver can be more efficient, and so that its cone moves less and therefore results in less treble modulation. That's not really an issue, however, when one considers the wavelengths involved, and the center-to-center spacing of the Uni-Q and helper woofer(s). Some people (like you) will squawk that they're no longer point sources, but the simple fact of the matter is that, at least at the crossover frequencies currently used (if they moved the Fc up an octave, I would agree with you), they still function as point sources even if to the untrained and unsophisticated eye they no longer look like they are point sources.
Reply
Reply
post #5051 of 6029
5/2/12 at 9:22am
Anyone knows what cable is inside of the REF / 2 series ?
Reply
Reply
post #5052 of 6029
5/2/12 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

And you would simply be wrong.



You're listening with your eyes, not your ears.

Funny thing is, if actually you believed what you write you would have left KEF long ago. KEF simply doesn't make a single-UniQ speaker that's capable of reproducing the dynamics of real music. They're just too small, and because of that too inefficient. No 3", 4.5.", 5", or 6.5" driver can do that. Maybe if they took the Q900's Uni-Q and made it into a standmount, one could say that it's borderline adequate. One might even say you would gravitate to speakers like my reference mains, which use 12" Tannoy Dual Concentric drivers and are point-sources from 40Hz up...

However, KEF's research seems to have led them into believing that a ~5" midrange/waveguide offers the current best compromise of wide dispersion and controlled directivity (see, e.g. Blade, R-Series), it follows that they need to employ helper drivers to cover the bass. While one can reasonably argue the merits of that position (Tannoy certainly would, as would Dr. Earl Geddes and others; both would say directivity control down lower is desirable), but KEF is not alone in having reached that conclusion. Two of the few other major commercial loudspeakers maker doing actual research into sound quality, Harman International and Genelec, seem to have reached a similar conclusion. Look at Harman's flagship Revels and also their flagship JBL Pro passive studio monitor, or Genelec's trick new MDC coincident driver.

But what follows from the 5" mid/tweet is the need for helper woofers in the bass, so that the main driver can be more efficient, and so that its cone moves less and therefore results in less treble modulation. That's not really an issue, however, when one considers the wavelengths involved, and the center-to-center spacing of the Uni-Q and helper woofer(s). Some people (like you) will squawk that they're no longer point sources, but the simple fact of the matter is that, at least at the crossover frequencies currently used (if they moved the Fc up an octave, I would agree with you), they still function as point sources even if to the untrained and unsophisticated eye they no longer look like they are point sources.

Your trying to tell me Im wrong? LOL! If you have a set of 201/2's then just disconnect the UniQ driver and be surprised at how much midrange information is being played through the "bass" driver. Pointsource means just that. The 201/2 is not a true point source by the definition of the word. Kef has made many true pointsource monitors currently and in the past. As for Kef's design intentions with the current lines, alot of it is based on the fact of driver cost. So yes, they made compromises, but to say a single driver cannot cover the ranges I am talking about(120hz range to 2 to 3khz and beyond)is a bit absurd. Maybe not at their current in house mfg driver construction cost they can't(because Kef's new lines focus on mfg cost REDUCTION due to their shrinking market share)but to say what your implying is out in left field literally. There are alot of DIY and a few high end speaker mfg's who use a true pointsource/xoverless with results that far surpass SQwise what most typical commercial mass produced speaker mfg's produce and market to the public.

BTW the Kef Blade is in reality a large monstrous pointsource floorstanding monitor with 4 "bass drivers" mounted square pattern/centered on the midrange driver perpendicular to the face. A different animal altogether, especially compared to the 201/2. But in reality, Id take an R100 and a pair of quality downfiring subs anyday of the week and get better balanced SQ still for a tiny fraction of the price compared to the Blade.
Reply
Reply
post #5053 of 6029
5/2/12 at 10:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Your trying to tell me Im wrong? LOL! If you have a set of 201/2's then just disconnect the UniQ driver and be surprised at how much midrange information is being played through the "bass" driver.

You assume without basis that it would be a "surprise."

However, your crude test doesn't mean anything in the real world to a more sophisticated observer, because while midrange will be audible the level is so low as to be entirely masked by the dominant signal from the Uni-Q when it is re-hooked up.

Note also that the same thing will happen if you disconnect your mains and listen only to your subs. At least if you have competently-designed ones. With compromised subs like Rythmiks, perhaps not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Pointsource means just that. The 201/2 is not a true point source by the definition of the word. Kef has made many true pointsource monitors currently and in the past.

Yes, most of KEF's current line is basically point-sources.

It's true that KEF has made plenty of speakers that use just their Uni-Q driver without bass support. I've personally owned a bunch of them since ~1997: Q15, RDM One, Q-Compact, HTS1005.2; currently in use are five of the KHT3005SE sats (not the center) with a multisub system in one room, and a pair of Q100s with a single sub in the bedroom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

As for Kef's design intentions with the current lines, alot of it is based on the fact of driver cost.

You've made that assertion a few times now. It's unsupported, either by data or by simple logic. However, it is a simple fact that other research-oriented loudspeaker makers, such as Harman International and Genelec, have also converged on the same horizontal directivity as KEF has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

So yes, they made compromises, but to say a single driver cannot cover the ranges I am talking about(120hz range to 2 to 3khz and beyond)is a bit absurd.

No single 3", 4.5", 5", or 6.5" driver can play down to 120Hz without suffering severe dynamic/thermal compression. And in the case of a Uni-Q, the cone motion required to produce serious SPL in the upper bass compromises the treble, because the cone is moving too much to act as a stable waveguide. People who can hear have noticed that problem.

Even an 8" coax on its own marginal down to 120Hz. I base that on my own comparisons between the Tannoy System 8 NFM II and the Tannoy System 12 DMT II. I've used a trio of the 8 NFM II's for a few years in my home office nearfield setup, and three 12 DMT II's donated their drivers for my reference system's front speakers. (The Ref 201/2's are the only speakers I've heard so far that have made me think about changing up my reference system, though as I mentioned before and ATDG confirmed, despite your assertion to the contrary, no real existing KEF dealer in the U.S. will sell three of them to a customer, even one with checkbook in hand.)

When listening to orchestral music (or some rock, like Radiohead) both thermal compression and treble modulation are obvious in the 8" coax compared to the 12" coax. Now, I expect KEF's Q900 driver is better-designed than the older Tannoy Dual Concentric, but physics is physics. An 8" driver still has to move a given amount at a given frequency to produce a given SPL.

Maybe not at their current in house mfg driver construction cost they can't(because Kef's new lines focus on mfg cost REDUCTION due to their shrinking market share)but to say what your implying is out in left field literally. There are alot of DIY and a few high end speaker mfg's who use a true pointsource/xoverless with results that far surpass SQwise what most typical commercial mass produced speaker mfg's produce and market to the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

But in reality, Id take an R100 and a pair of quality downfiring subs anyday of the week and get better balanced SQ still for a tiny fraction of the price compared to the Blade.

I doubt that, simply because the Blade's cabinet has much lower diffraction than the R100's. Also, the R100+sub system will suffer dynamic compression earlier, and have compromised high-volume performance because the R100's little 5" driver is simply asked to do too much.
Reply
Reply
post #5054 of 6029
5/2/12 at 11:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweElite View Post

Anyone knows what cable is inside of the REF / 2 series ?

I have two pair of Ref 104/2 mains. One pair is the typical SP3037 model, and the other is the SP3128 bi-wire model (the ones with magnetic attachment plastic framed grilles and the darker rosewood finish.)

I're restored both pair, taking them completely apart and rebuilding them, doing all the typical work like re-capping, replacing binding posts, floor spikes, repairing drivers and re-foaming the woofers.
I'm not sure I follow what you're asking. the cable? you mean the electrical wiring? It looked to be about 18 gauge to 16 gague depending on which wire it was. Typical multi-strand, insulated wire.


In regards to the ongoing discussion of point sources and KEF Ref speakers, I've been using the 104/2s since around 1990, and I've found that while they are anything buy a point source speaker, they do have fantastic off-axis imaging, and the sound stage is terrific, at least to my ears.
The only speakers I've auditioned under ten grand USD that I've liked as much as these, are higher end MartinLogans, like the Ascent and Odyssey ESL speakers with the powered woofers in the lower cabinets. Eyes closed, listening to a jazz CD, they reminded me of my first 104/2 auditions, wherein I could close my eyes, and point to where each musician was sitting, and how near or far from me each person was standing. It was like being in a real jazz club listening to a live performance, and in the end, that's all I'm really after with any speakers. How life-like does it sound to my ears when I kick back and listen just for the enjoyment of the music.

If I can forget that I'm listening to a pair of speakers, and just get lost in the music, then the speakers are doing the job I bought them for.. IMHO.
Reply
Reply
post #5055 of 6029
5/2/12 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

You assume without basis that it would be a "surprise."

However, your crude test doesn't mean anything in the real world to a more sophisticated observer, because while midrange will be audible the level is so low as to be entirely masked by the dominant signal from the Uni-Q when it is re-hooked up.

Note also that the same thing will happen if you disconnect your mains and listen only to your subs. At least if you have competently-designed ones. With compromised subs like Rythmiks, perhaps not.



Yes, most of KEF's current line is basically point-sources.

It's true that KEF has made plenty of speakers that use just their Uni-Q driver without bass support. I've personally owned a bunch of them since ~1997: Q15, RDM One, Q-Compact, HTS1005.2; currently in use are five of the KHT3005SE sats (not the center) with a multisub system in one room, and a pair of Q100s with a single sub in the bedroom.



You've made that assertion a few times now. It's unsupported, either by data or by simple logic. However, it is a simple fact that other research-oriented loudspeaker makers, such as Harman International and Genelec, have also converged on the same horizontal directivity as KEF has.



No single 3", 4.5", 5", or 6.5" driver can play down to 120Hz without suffering severe dynamic/thermal compression. And in the case of a Uni-Q, the cone motion required to produce serious SPL in the upper bass compromises the treble, because the cone is moving too much to act as a stable waveguide. People who can hear have noticed that problem.

Even an 8" coax on its own marginal down to 120Hz. I base that on my own comparisons between the Tannoy System 8 NFM II and the Tannoy System 12 DMT II. I've used a trio of the 8 NFM II's for a few years in my home office nearfield setup, and three 12 DMT II's donated their drivers for my reference system's front speakers. (The Ref 201/2's are the only speakers I've heard so far that have made me think about changing up my reference system, though as I mentioned before and ATDG confirmed, despite your assertion to the contrary, no real existing KEF dealer in the U.S. will sell three of them to a customer, even one with checkbook in hand.)

When listening to orchestral music (or some rock, like Radiohead) both thermal compression and treble modulation are obvious in the 8" coax compared to the 12" coax. Now, I expect KEF's Q900 driver is better-designed than the older Tannoy Dual Concentric, but physics is physics. An 8" driver still has to move a given amount at a given frequency to produce a given SPL.

Maybe not at their current in house mfg driver construction cost they can't(because Kef's new lines focus on mfg cost REDUCTION due to their shrinking market share)but to say what your implying is out in left field literally. There are alot of DIY and a few high end speaker mfg's who use a true pointsource/xoverless with results that far surpass SQwise what most typical commercial mass produced speaker mfg's produce and market to the public.



I doubt that, simply because the Blade's cabinet has much lower diffraction than the R100's. Also, the R100+sub system will suffer dynamic compression earlier, and have compromised high-volume performance because the R100's little 5" driver is simply asked to do too much.

A. The problem is the dominant signal is equally shared between both drivers around 4-500hz..........and in the case of the 201/2 that means at 1khz its still only 12db down, enough to potentially pull and smear the dispersion pattern.

B. What i state concerning Kef on their design direction (in terms of mfg cost) might be directly unsupported. But with many friends and connections who work or used to work for Kef, and their distributions networks....Id have to say I have alot better insight and knowledge on to what goes on beyond the scene with this company than you do. You can believe whatever you want, but Kef has lost alot of major retailers/resellers in the past decade. And if Kef closes shop within the next 4-5 years, you can look back on this thread. There are no more chains like HiFi Buys or Tweeter or Brynmar carrying Kef products, and thats just here in the US alone. Its just as bad over in Europe. They don't do the same volume anymore as they did at the turn of the century. Their newer products are reflecting that in many forms.

C. Ah...the "compromised" sub product....Id say before you even waste your breath on this, to answer alot of the questions tossed your way....alot that you simply avoided. You have a pattern going of sidestepping alot of points made, especially on testing procedures, settings, etc...........especially on products you have never directly dealt with.

D. So no 3, 4,5, or 6" driver can play down to 120hz without thermal compression? Your kidding right? Why don't you start a new thread in this section stating that.....LOL! Just curious..........having owned a Q100......what did you have that crossed over at?

Also, just curious....the 201/2.....what size bass dirver does it use? 6" right? LOL! .........Dude you have no clue what your talking about now.....

But hey! Here is a 5" driver pointsource speaker that can output serious extension down to 20hz...: http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/m...lumination.htm



E. An R100 uses basically the same UniQ driver as the blade........and you think a tiny monitor like the R100 is going to have diffraction issues....vs the large Blade? Got any proof to back that up? LOL! And you think an R100 pair with a quality pair of subs is going to have compression issues before the blade? Your joking right? Output is going to be about the same based on the midrange driver's abilities.....its the same basically between em.
Reply
Reply
post #5056 of 6029
5/2/12 at 11:44am
Should I by the XQ40 or the R500? Both cost about the same, the XQ40 has a nicer design though, and I already own the XQ50c...
Reply
Reply
post #5057 of 6029
5/2/12 at 11:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Also, just curious....the 201/2.....what size bass dirver does it use? 6" right? LOL! .........Dude you have no clue what your talking about now.....

Please keep in mind that I'm not entering this argument, and my following commentary is out of context to the discussion, I'm just making an observation on the above comment specifically because it caught my eye.

A 6.5" driver can be a midrange, midbass, or a woofer, or even (yes) a "subwoofer."
The key to which it happens to be, is it's BL curve, which is determined by how the driver is designed by it's speaker designer/engineer. (I won't go into the specifics of magnet structure design types and all that techie jazz) so sure a 6" driver can serve any of those functions, however, you won't get a 6" midrange to work well as a woofer or a midbass driver, if that wasn't what it was designed to do. That's all I really wanted to say.
I guess it caught my eye because I see this sort of thing so much in car audio (I've been a master installer for two decades) wherein, a person wants a midbass driver to warm up the sound between mis separates up front, and his subs in the trunk. So what does he do? He buys a pair of 8" subs and asks how to wire them up as midbass drivers.
Then I get to explain how he needs to find some actual midbass 8" drivers, and use a bandpass filter for them, etc etc.. and how subs aren't designed to hit anything above the bottom two octaves in a car in most cases.


Horses for courses as they say.
Reply
Reply
post #5058 of 6029
5/2/12 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringnes View Post

Should I by the XQ40 or the R500? Both cost about the same, the XQ40 has a nicer design though, and I already own the XQ50c...



regardless of the pissing match going on in here and my personal preference you should always match your front 3 speakers.. unless you want to upgrade to a new R center. go with the xq.
Reply
Reply
post #5059 of 6029
5/2/12 at 11:57am
Oh, on an unrelated note, I just managed to get my paws on a 200C Reference center channel to go with my 104/2 mains in my main HT setup! I've been looking for a good 200C for years now. I finally found one I could afford, that was hardly used and in great shape, so I pounced on it.

Now I can move my model 100 to my bedroom system to replace a crappy old AR CS-225 center I was using (that whole system is a patchwork of leftover gear) and probably find a new home for my old model 90.

It's surprising how rare the 200C has gotten to be in the used gear market. Those, and the 105/3 mains.. darned hard to find at a reasonable price, and in really good shape.
Reply
Reply
post #5060 of 6029
5/2/12 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

A. The problem is the dominant signal is equally shared between both drivers around 4-500hz..........and in the case of the 201/2 that means at 1khz its still only 12db down, enough to potentially pull and smear the dispersion pattern.

Lots of use of hedge words like "potentially" that show you don't actually have a point, and you know it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

***You can believe whatever you want, but Kef has lost alot of major retailers/resellers in the past decade. And if Kef closes shop within the next 4-5 years, you can look back on this thread. There are no more chains like HiFi Buys or Tweeter or Brynmar carrying Kef products, and thats just here in the US alone.

I can't speak to the others, HiFi Buys (pre Tweeter) never carried KEF anyway. Their main lines around here were API (Mirage/Energy), Martin-Logan, Monitor Audio, and Klipsch.

And post-Tweeter buyout, at least their stores in the SE US never carried KEF, except for the eggs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

D. So no 3, 4,5, or 6" driver can play down to 120hz without thermal compression?

No, they can't. Not on their own, at least. (If used in a line array or something, that's different.)

They can't at the SPL required to accurately reproduce large-scale live unamplified music such as a Mahler or Shostakovich symphony, at least. At background levels, they're fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Just curious..........having owned a Q100......what did you have that crossed over at?

First, as I clearly indicated in my preceding post, own not owned. (The plain meaning of the phase "currently in use" is sufficiently clear to an observant reader.)

I use my Q100's in the bedroom for background music. They have ports plugged and no high-pass. The sub's filter is I think around 100Hz indicated. The integrated that powers them right now, a Meridian 551, doesn't have bass management or preout/main-in loops. And the system is for background listening, and only includes one sub, so I get overall better low-volume response by letting the mains roll off naturally. Yes, they completely fall apart if I ask them to reproduce Shostakovich 10 at 7th-row-center-in-the-Berliner-Philharmonie levels. I've tried it so I know. But, again, they're in a background music system so that doesn't happen

They're fine, spectacular even, in that role. But would I use them in my reference system? No. I think its 5" Uni-Q is very, very good, though, and maybe that Uni-Q with that driver and 10" woofer that can play up to 500Hz cleanly, with a well-engineered crossover, would be a very good loudspeaker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Also, just curious....the 201/2.....what size bass dirver does it use? 6" right? LOL! .........Dude you have no clue what your talking about now.....

Actually, if you actually read and understand what you were reading, you would see no inconsistency. In my blog post on the 201/2 I wrote the following pair of sentences:

"One does notice their inefficiency, when one compares them directly to similarly excellent but more efficient speakers, in the form of lower-midrange compression on fff massed strings and other such loud sustained passages. But for their size they strike a pretty reasonable balance of efficiency and extension."

That is exactly what I'm saying here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

But hey! Here is a 5" driver pointsource speaker that can output serious extension down to 20hz...: http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/m...lumination.htm

An assertion unsupported by measurements, and thus pointless. One can usually tell the good speakers Soundstage reviews from the clunkers with massively overblown claims because the good speakers are submitted the NRC for testing, and the dross is not. (Furthermore, having heard a Feastrex driver, let's just say I understand why it wasn't submitted for real testing...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

E. An R100 uses basically the same UniQ driver as the blade........and you think a tiny monitor like the R100 is going to have diffraction issues....vs the large Blade?

Yes.

The reason the R100 is inferior in diffraction to the Blade is that the R100 has sharp discontinuities, whereas the Blade (except on the top) is all smooth, gradual curves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntrain96 View Post

Got any proof to back that up? LOL! And you think an R100 pair with a quality pair of subs is going to have compression issues before the blade?

Yes.

Unless one crosses the the subs very high up, like in the 500Hz range. And then one probably won't want to use down-firing subs, because the cavity resonance (from the cavity between the bottom of the cabinet and the floor) will fall within the passband.
Reply
Reply
post #5061 of 6029
5/3/12 at 5:41pm
Looks like KEF has a new speaker, the LS50.

Maybe it's voiced differently, but it looks like an R100 with a little more attention paid to the cabinet's diffraction signature, though interestingly the baffle is convex, not concave like the baffles of the Blade and 3005E, or KEF alumnus Andrew Jones' speakers for TAD and Pioneer Elite.

It's priced between the R100 and R300.

Unfortunately, somebody vomited all over the driver.

Reply
Reply
post #5062 of 6029
5/3/12 at 5:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Looks like KEF has a new speaker, the LS50.

Maybe it's voiced differently, but it looks like an R100 with a little more attention paid to the cabinet's diffraction signature, though interestingly the baffle is convex, not concave like the baffles of the Blade and 3005E, or KEF alumnus Andrew Jones' speakers for TAD and Pioneer Elite.

It's priced between the R100 and R300.

Unfortunately, somebody vomited all over the driver.




yea i saw that, the variable port thing is kinda interesting, and it looks like a much better designed cabinet, looking forward to hearing a pair
Reply
Reply
post #5063 of 6029
5/3/12 at 6:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Looks like KEF has a new speaker, the LS50.

Maybe it's voiced differently, but it looks like an R100 with a little more attention paid to the cabinet's diffraction signature, though interestingly the baffle is convex, not concave like the baffles of the Blade and 3005E, or KEF alumnus Andrew Jones' speakers for TAD and Pioneer Elite.

It's priced between the R100 and R300.

Unfortunately, somebody vomited all over the driver.


I was interested until I saw the specs. Only handles 100 watts. 106db max. Won't work for my 2ch.
Reply
Reply
post #5064 of 6029
5/3/12 at 8:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewTT View Post

I was interested until I saw the specs. Only handles 100 watts. 106db max. Won't work for my 2ch.

It's a little monitor with a 5" driver. Any speaker maker/marketer who claims more for a speaker with a 5" driver is...how to put it...lying.

KEF, to their credit, seems to be playing it straight with the specs here. 103dB at 80Hz is on the upper end of plausible from a 5" driver in a small vented cabinet.

If you want more output, you need bigger speakers.
Reply
Reply
post #5065 of 6029
5/4/12 at 12:16pm
Ok guys, i just orderd a pair of the 203/2 s and the smaller Ref center.

Do i get some wire jumpers with the speakers ?
Reply
Reply
post #5066 of 6029
5/4/12 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlassWolf View Post

Oh, on an unrelated note, I just managed to get my paws on a 200C Reference center channel to go with my 104/2 mains in my main HT setup! I've been looking for a good 200C for years now. I finally found one I could afford, that was hardly used and in great shape, so I pounced on it.

Now I can move my model 100 to my bedroom system to replace a crappy old AR CS-225 center I was using (that whole system is a patchwork of leftover gear) and probably find a new home for my old model 90.

It's surprising how rare the 200C has gotten to be in the used gear market. Those, and the 105/3 mains.. darned hard to find at a reasonable price, and in really good shape.

I've got a model 100 center in my living room now, and am somewhat unhappy with the dialogue volume for home theater. Could be my room acoustics, but I'm not sure. What was your experience with the model 100 with regards to dialogue? And is the 200C a significant difference in terms of dialogue? Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #5067 of 6029
5/4/12 at 5:48pm
Anyone in here has ever used or listened to the T-series?? I've read here that it's best to always make sure that you buy your front- and center speaker from the same model/series, anyone care to explain why?
Reply
Reply
post #5068 of 6029
5/4/12 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweElite View Post

Ok guys, i just orderd a pair of the 203/2 s and the smaller Ref center.

Do i get some wire jumpers with the speakers ?

KEF Reference speakers come with a box of accessories for the speakers including jumper cables if you are not bi-amping, etc. Each speaker is tested and the results are signed by the individual who put them together. SJ
Reply
Reply
post #5069 of 6029
5/4/12 at 6:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fkhatri View Post

My home theater has following set up:

Denon AVR 2310
Denon DVD 1740
POPCORNHOUR C200 with 2 TB (4 nos.)

Panasonic AX100E 720p projector and 110" screen

Speakers are:

Kef IQ5 (front L/R)
Kef IQ6C (Centre)
Kef IQ8ds (sides surr)
Kef IQ10 (rear surr)
Kef Kube1 (subwofer)

Room size is 12'-0"x17'-0" (screen on 12' side)

I want to change my subwoofer... anybody suggest good model for my setup...

Hope it's not tool late but you have a lovely setup there except for the Kube1. I've had many Kef's series: ACE9000, KHT3005, iQ900 with many velodynes, Hsu 2.3 m4, dual ULS-15 and I will tell you that you will do well just to look in your local craigslist for any Velodyne cht-10 or DPS-10 easily around $150 or less and is all you need. Your kef's will never sound so good I guarantee.
Reply
Reply
post #5070 of 6029
5/4/12 at 7:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by beezar View Post

What was your experience with the model 100 with regards to dialogue? And is the 200C a significant difference in terms of dialogue? Thanks

I've noticed a marked improvement in dialog going from a model 90 to the model 100, which I just put into the system today. The 200C will arrive Wednesday, so I can update you then. The 90 and 100 are both ported enclosures, whereas the 200 is IB, so different approach. Should yield a somewhat different result.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Akuma1970 View Post

I've read here that it's best to always make sure that you buy your front- and center speaker from the same model/series, anyone care to explain why?

Timbre-matching. Every driver, and thus every speaker has a distinct tonal quality to it, based on the drivers' design, BL curve, response range, sensitivity, and so forth. Having the front three speakers from the same brand/model line insures that all three speakers producing the lion share of your HT audio have a matched tonal quality, or timbre (pronounced |tam'-bur|) You also tend to get speakers with a similar sensitivity, power handling, and output level, so your amplifier(s) driving those channels will be fairly evenly loaded. Not that the latter bit really makes a big difference really.
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