KEF Owners Thread - Page 170

Originally Posted by zoey67

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.

Originally Posted by DS-21

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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...)



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.



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.

Originally Posted by GlassWolf

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.

Originally Posted by ntrain96

You sure can get a "midrange" driver to work as a bass driver as well. Its not just BL and the T/S parameters, its also the enclosure size and type too. Car audio really isnt going to apply here though, because of size/space/cabin limitations. There are alot of high end full range drivers out on the market now. Lowther, Mark Audio,FOstex Feastrex etc: http://www.feastrex.com/products.html#2

Speakers void of xovers and pointsource in nature are the best sounding and most natural in their imaging and presentation I feel. But it takes a very high quality driver and careful design of the enclosure to accomplish true full range sound. Kef's UniQ pointsource monitors get somewhat close in the sound for cheap money using their inexpensive UniQ drivers.

Originally Posted by GlassWolf

I need a bit of help from someone with a better memory than I have.
I'm recording original MSRP values for my home theater for insurance reasons, and I have that information for everything but two of my KEF speakers.
Does anyone recall the original MSRP on the Reference Model 90, and Model 100 center channel speakers? (both bi-wire models) I can't seem to find the info online. Apparently, my Google-Fu is weak today.
Thanks to anyone who could help me out on this one. I already have this info for my 200C, and 104/2 pairs, just not the model 90 or 100.

Originally Posted by GlassWolf

That holds true in home or car.

Originally Posted by ntrain96

A. My terms are generalized obviously and not just geared towards the 201/2, but regardless a "bass driver" that plays flat to around 500hz and is only 12db down is going to play a much bigger factor on defining a true point source.

Originally Posted by ntrain96

B. Sure they can, a smaller driver is more than capable of playing low frequencies CLEANLY at at loud levels.....it all depends on the cabinet type and tuning.

Originally Posted by ntrain96

C. Do you know where your Q100's roll off at and at what slope being "semi sealed"?

Originally Posted by ntrain96

DO you realize you make such a big deal about "diffraction" yet I bet you have no idea how minor if an issue it really is. There are lots flat faced speakers that dont have any issues with diffraction. BUt yet you seem obsessed with this particular point.

Originally Posted by ntrain96

There are alot of high end full range drivers out on the market now. Lowther, Mark Audio,FOstex Feastrex etc:

Originally Posted by ntrain96

But it takes a very high quality driver and careful design of the enclosure to accomplish true full range sound. Kef's UniQ pointsource monitors get somewhat close in the sound for cheap money using their inexpensive UniQ drivers.

Originally Posted by DS-21

Please stop talking about things you don't understand.

IF you want to show that something like a Ref 201/2 doesn't act as a quote true point source, unquote. Prove it. Show horizontal and vertical polar maps demonstrating its behavior. Anything less is just someone with just enough knowledge to get things consistently wrong relieving himself against the wind.



Nope.

Besides, to properly integrate with subwoofers mains should really be sealed. It's easier to blend 2d order rolloffs than higher-order rolloffs. So performance in a closed box is all one should really consider.



Yes. Unlike you, I have modern measurement tools, not just some cutting-edge-ca.-1985 RTA.



Yes, because I can hear.

I've also had the chance to directly compare the same drive-unit in a fairly diffractive cabinet. Here's the factory Tannoy System 12 DMT II.



Note the ridges on the baffle, the minimal roundovers, the ports, and the protruding logo.

And those drive units in cabinets I personally designed using best practices to reduce diffraction, with the same baffle dimensions as the factory speaker so they could be compared using the same crossover.



Note the very large roundovers (for size reference, the Dual Concentric driver is 12"), continuous curves, and complete lack of disruptive surfaces on the baffle.

The difference is indeed measurable, but not very stark. The difference in listening fatigue over long listening sessions is marked. And consistent with the literature on diffraction perception.

You probably don't have the experience, or skill set, to make that comparison.



Those are all very low-fidelity drivers. Seriously, mentioning KEF and Lowther or Feastrex in the same breath just marks one as fundamentally unserious.

(And yes, those Feastrex drivers are just about the opposite of high-fidelity. I have heard them. Awful, awful, awful. Though your expression of fondness for them explains an awful lot about your posts. In the no-crossover, backloaded horn designs favored by "full range" fetishists, they have shouty midrange, uneven treble on axis that disappears completely off axis, little upper bass, midbass like a cheap car system, and no deep bass. A tiny little KEF HTS1005 egg is a higher-fidelity reproducer than any of those horror shows.)



A well-engineered loudspeaker as KEF typically sells sounds nothing like one of those "full range" monstrosities!

Originally Posted by khalid7412002

I got questions for you KEF gurus regarding a possible purchase of some KEF speakers off craigslist.

I currently own the KHT3005SE system with an additional sub added, Outlaw LFM-1 EX, connected to a denon 3311ci receiver. However, I feel as though my center channel is lacking and even adjusting it post audyssey calibration, I still have difficulty with dialogue in some movies, I had to turn on subtitles for The Immortals.

I found a local seller who is selling two Q700BLs and 1 Q600CBL for a total of $800, according to seller, they are only 3 months old and still has boxes for each speaker. I usually only buy brand new electronics but these are selling for around 700 each and this makes me wonder if this is a deal is too good to be true, but if it is the real deal, then I must jump on it., that's what she said.

Is this a good enough deal that I should jump on it, provided they are still available, or can a better deal be had for higher series speakers in the KEF line up?

Also, if it is a great deal, what should I look for when I examine them?

Lastly, would my denon 3311ci AVR be sufficient with volumes up to -20dbs on the receiver or would I need to get an external AMP?

Thanks for any suggestions. I don't "need" new speakers but if this is a too good to pass up deal, then I will forego eating for a few weeks for some new KEFs

Originally Posted by txinliner

i know its kinda late so you prabably got this all figured out but i have my q300s powerd by a marantz sr6005.... and its fantastic

Originally Posted by yveletnik

I'm thinking about switching my setup to KEF and the choice is between Q900 and R500 (I'd like to stay under $2,000). Anyone heard them both and could comment?

I heard Q900s and like how they sound confident and big.
In any case I will be using a subwoofer, probably Rythmik 12" sealed.
Not sure if R500 is worth extra $500.

Currently I have a true audiophile speakers that sound great on acoustic and voice recordings but don't play rock and lots of contemporary music right. Stuff like Nirvana, AC/DC. Red Hots just sound terrible. Q900 was forgiving to that kind of music, so I'm thinking of downgrading...

Any idea where I can demo R series in Chicagoland?

Any help appreciated.

Originally Posted by yveletnik

I'm thinking about switching my setup to KEF and the choice is between Q900 and R500 (I'd like to stay under $2,000). Anyone heard them both and could comment?

I heard Q900s and like how they sound confident and big.
In any case I will be using a subwoofer, probably Rythmik 12" sealed.
Not sure if R500 is worth extra $500.

Currently I have a true audiophile speakers that sound great on acoustic and voice recordings but don't play rock and lots of contemporary music right. Stuff like Nirvana, AC/DC. Red Hots just sound terrible. Q900 was forgiving to that kind of music, so I'm thinking of downgrading...

Any idea where I can demo R series in Chicagoland?

Any help appreciated.

Originally Posted by cream puff

the R's should sound better and more accurate however the Q's will probably play a fair bit louder and lower.. depends what you're looking for.

Originally Posted by yveletnik

That's where my problem is. The thing that impressed me in Q900 was their confidence and how easy they went loud and stayed relaxed without hurting my ears. I'm afraid I might loose that if I go with R500. But the R series suppose to be a step up form Q, right?

Here is my logic:
One one hand it shouldn't matter as I will use a sub. On the other if a sub covers 60Hz and below.
The Q900 will play 60-2.5KHz with 2x 8" drives
R500 will play 60-500Hz with 2x 5.25" drives and 500-2.8KHz with 1x 5"
So my concern is that R500 might be missing that confidence in 60-500Hz region that impressed me in Q900.
Maybe I'm reading those stats wrong?

The bottom line I need a speaker that can handle "non Audiophile" recordings well. I get awesome detail/resolution/clarity in my current system and when recording is right it really tickles my senses but it's very picky about the source material. So big part of music I listen to is un-listenable (like that song "Adele - Set fire to the rain" gave me 30 minutes had ache and I have not heard a proper roar or rock guitar out of my speakers yet). Many people say garbage in - garbage out or "You just need to get used to how a HiFi speaker sounds"; but if my kind of music is poorly mixed I need to find a quality speaker that can handle that.

Anybody here actually heard both Q900 and R500?

p.s. I don't listen to music loud 95% of the time

Originally Posted by GlassWolf

did you consider a used pair of Reference series speakers like, perhaps the 201/2 or something along those lines instead?

Originally Posted by ntrain96

Output will be basically the same between them. And the R500's will be solid down to 60-80hz as well. But with the R's I would without question use a sub or subs for the last 1-2 octaves(20hz to 60-80hz). If you already have a sub or subs, then the R500's would be the choice without question.

If you don't have a sub or subs on hand, then I would highly consider grabbing a pair of R100's......take the money saved and pick up a good sub or subs, because a pair of R100's with a good dedicated sub or 2 will be the superior setup without question, both for imagaing potential and low frequency extension.

Also, the truth of that matter is, if a speaker is accurate(read flat frequency response)then its going to be just fine for any type of music IMO.

Originally Posted by cream puff

i would think that a r100 with subs would out perform r500s with no sub, but the r500 with subs will be the top performer easily.

the other thing to keep in mind is why spend more when you don't have too if you already admittedly like the sound of the q900s why not just go with them and leave well enough alone.. could the r500 be better? possibly.. but you can always spend more the ref series will be better still but again more money.. spend the least amount you can and still be happy with the sound, especially if you already have a 'better' system and will just use these to rock and roll so to speak.

Originally Posted by yveletnik

T So big part of music I listen to is un-listenable (like that song "Adele - Set fire to the rain" gave me 30 minutes had ache

Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity

Strange... I heard that track through a very resolving setup and I thought it sounded good, albeit "studio recording"-y. The Live version sounded better

You sure your room acoustics and electronics aren't a problem?

I know the Q900s are less sensitive to room acoustics and more efficient than Song Towers, but you may still be able to get better sound out of the ST. Your amp may be clipping or your room may be accentiating highs.

Originally Posted by yveletnik

I dont think the highs is the problem in that song's case. It's upper mid-range, at the part when violins kick in all together I just want to cover my ears and run away.
i though my room could be a problem so I brought about every sound absorbing thing I have in a house (mattresss, pillows, toys, blankets...) i changed the sound, but the general idea was the same. Maybe my ears/brain is just too sensitive.
I still kinda have a slight suspicion my receiver might be a problem (Marantz 6005), but I dont listen loud, -15 is the most.
Anyways I think I'll keep my CAOW1s (really close to ST sound) and run them side by side with Q900. Should give me the best of both worlds.
But then again if I can hunt down a pair of used 201/2s for $2K it changes everything.

Originally Posted by yveletnik

I didnt realize that anything in reference series would be in $2000 reach even used. I'll shop around, thanks.





So you saying that a pair of R100 with subs would be better than R500s with sub?

Originally Posted by juswat

Hello to all,

I'm new here but not new to Kef's. I have a question for any Kef owners that may have experience in matching Kef speakers, specifically Reference 203/2's (about to purchase) or other Ref 2**/2's with the current Luxman electronics.

I was unable to demo the Refs with Luxman but the curiosity is overwhelming. Anyone willing to comment, with any experience in these two brands together would be greatly appreciated.........

Thanks.