KEF Owners Thread - Page 182

Originally Posted by Scottyp3 

how are the ls50's for movies?

Originally Posted by sdg4vfx 

When listening/comparing the Q300 to the Q100 I felt like the Q100 was a bit more even, and maybe even slightly more detailed. Then the same thing happened when I compared the R300 to the R100. I think what I was hearing on the the 300's, both the R and the Q, was a very slight push in the mids that muddied the mids a hint. Not dissing the 300's - both the 100's and the 300's sounded excellent to me and the difference was very, very subtle. And of course a big plus to both the 300's was the extended bass (I'll be using a sub so that advantage is not as important to me).
Just curious - has anyone else heard the same thing?
Unfortunately I heard the Q and the R series on different occasions so I haven't had a chance to compare the two series to each other. I'm a fan of three identical speakers LRC and am leaning towards using either the Q100 or R100 for my front stage. The difference in price between the Q and R series is nearly double hence my second question ...
Is there a significant sq difference between the Q100 and R100? Has anyone had a chance to compare them?
(Still considering the Q300 or R300 so any comparison of those would be welcome also.)

Originally Posted by Oldemar 

Hello!
I'm thinking of a 5.1 setup using Q300 x4, and hoping to upgrade to 7.1 in the future.
My question is regarding the center, I have read the Q600c will be the best option since it shares the same UniQ driver as the Q300, and the Q200c uses the Q100 driver.
I have also read about people using another Q300 as center (same speaker for LCR)
1- What is the best way to go? Q600c?
Also,
2- Any idea how much the Q600c will suffer being placed next to a wall? (as I understand it is rear ported)
Will 2-3" be enough for the port, or can the port be plugged - heard the Q300 can be plugged to remove the boom in the bass.
3- Which crossover are you guy using with the Q300 and Q100?
A couple of posts I read mention the Q100 is not that good at 80Hz, so they XO it at 100-120Hz
4- Is it overkill to go 5/7 channels using all Q300? Should I use Q300 front and Q100 for surrounds?
Side note:
My first choice was the KHT9000, but for the best price I have found, each cost the same as a pair of Q300, and according to specs and what I read, the Q300 seem to be better.
Any thoughts on that? Am I doing the right thing with Q300 over KHT9000?
Other info
Room is ~1800sq feet
AVR will be a Denon 4311, or a 4520 if I find the money :P
Sub: chose a Rythmik F15 (sealed) - no room for a ported 15", and don't want to lose excursion by going 12"
Used for 80-90% movies, the rest music. (no games)
Thanks!

Originally Posted by yveletnik 

I could always hear the difference between the horizontal center and LR. So there is benefit to using all identical speakers. R600c is not ported though
And the rears get so little action that I think the Q100s would do just fine

Originally Posted by yveletnik 

... There is always audiogon where you can find a pair of used R300 and Q300s and A/B them at home for a couplle of months, than sell the looser ... Look at E-bay too ...
And also people seems to say good things about LS50s and I bet those will have a good resale value since those are anniversary editions... You know if ADTG wants to get them it means they will go up in price:)
hope it helps

Originally Posted by sdg4vfx 

After lot's of listening/auditioning I'm 95% sure I want to go with 3 identical speakers up front - LRC - for my HT upgrade. Since I don't have enough room for my center to be an upright bookshelf speaker I'm primarily looking at single source speakers so that I can lay the center bookshelf speaker on it's side. (Unfortunately this rules out the R300.) Here are the top 3 setups I'm considering (I'll choose my sub based on which 5.0 I get) ...
R100's RLC and as RL surrounds
($3000)
Q300's RLC with Q100's as RL surrounds
($1550)
Q500 RL
Q200c C
Q100 surrounds
($2050)
Deviating on the last group only because the Q500 and Q200c have closely matching components (5.25 mid/LF drivers and ABR, tower has an extra ABR). The R500 and R200c have exactly matching components but that's getting too pricey. Still uneasy with a horizontal speaker ...
Mostly interested in comments comparing R100's to Q300's.

Originally Posted by yveletnik 

here is what I had from Vanns, brand new, not opened box, delivered, no sale tax:
Q900s
Q600c
Q800DSs
$2200
so the $2050 for Q500 based setup is a bit too much. So i'd shop around.
When I sad I can hear a difference between center and RL i mean it's there, but it doesnt bother me at all, the center channel runs different info than the RL anyways. I'm getting the R200c for my R500s RL, I wouldn't use the Q200c with Rs but......imo no reason to go through all the trouble to get a perfect match. also you might get away with Q (or even KHT or T) series as rears and R series front. ...
... Another thing while I could get sellers drop 30% off the MSRP on the Q series, the R series all I could hustle down is 10%.
So my logic is I'm putting most in LR because I want good music, the center is selected automatically and the rears is just whatever looks good on the wall:)
so why not try
R300s LR - $900 - $1100 used
R200c - best I could find is $800 from an unauthorized seller, but I bet if could be found cheaper if not rush
Q100s - $400?
R300s and R200c have a same UniQ, so will sound close.
so total is around $2200
or for same $2200 you can get a Q900s setup if you got room for those.

Originally Posted by sdg4vfx 

(Oddly the smaller profile KEF speakers like the T101 or HTS3001 cost more.)

Originally Posted by sdg4vfx 

Oye, wish I knew how you get $3250, Vanns' listed price, in speakers for $2200 from Vanns ; )

Originally Posted by Oldemar 

Will there be any issues to place a Q300 sideways as a Center?
Since its only 1 driver (UniQ) there should be none, but the bass reflex port makes me doubt a bit, will it generate any kind of "unbalance"? ...
... Anyone with Q300/Q100 has a picture of the underside of the speaker?
Is it nice/smooth as the sides/top, or is it plain, ugly or strange color?
Thanks!

Originally Posted by DS-21 

Compare the cabinet of the Q100 to the HTS3001, and the reason the latter is more expensive will be obvious.
I wish KEF would update the 3005's with their latest-greatest drivers. Even though they're still excellent little speakers. Way, way better than anything else in their size class regardless of price, IMO.

Originally Posted by dftkell 

Hi DS-21,
Having both the Q100 and the HTS3001's in your living room, do you consider the HTS's to be the superior overall speaker?
Thanks
Dan

Originally Posted by DS-21 

Well, this post will be to some degree an admission against interest - I currently have one of my two KHT-3005SE sets listed on the auction site - but I think the Q100 is generally the better-sounding speaker for most uses. It plays a lot more freely before dynamic compression kicks in (bigger driver, bigger cabinet), renders a more palpable midrange, and has more extended highs. However, the3005SE does image better (in fact, better than anything else I’ve yet heard, at any price or any size, from anyone, though I haven’t heard the LS50 or Blade) in terms of width, depth, placement, and recording-to-recording variability. The 3005SE is clearly voiced warmer as well, with a more pronounced decline in sound power with frequency. Whether or not that’s a good thing depends more than anything else on your listening distance and the overall size of your room. The Q100, by contrast, is voiced hotter on top, and also adds a bit of extra emphasis to sibilant sounds in a recording.
My earlier post only spoke to comparative build quality. The KHT-3005SE looks/feels like a premium product from top to bottom. They are not only well-styled, but well-designed, too. The Q100 looks and feels…like a speaker whose development budget was blown on a fantastic bespoke drive unit, and therefore required cost-cutting measures everywhere else to meet the desired price-point. To use a car analogy, the perceived quality difference between the 3005SE and Q100 is like the perceived quality difference between a Mini Cooper and the old Dodge Neon SRT4.
FWIW, right now my main system uses two 3005SE “center channels” on the KEF floor stands as side surrounds and two 3005SE main/surround channels on the standard tabletop stands atop a bookshelf as back surrounds. My temporary LCR are Q100’s, though that will change hopefully before the year’s out, and if not early next year. The 3005SE bits will likely stay in my main system even when the mains get much better, because the dynamic demands of surround speakers are low, their spectral balance is perfect for that role, and they look so good.

Originally Posted by reevhal 

Hi all,
Can you tell me if an Yamaha RX-A1020 could power the speakers IQ90 and IQ60C for the frontal zone.
I think then add an amplifier (bypass) for the stereo.
Thank you in advance
Greg

Originally Posted by Concept001 

Question re matching up R series for a 7 channel setup.
What I am looking at is:
R300 L&R fronts
R600c center
R100 sides
R100 rears
Thoughts?
Also still looking for a sub.

Originally Posted by Concept001 

Question re matching up R series for a 7 channel setup.

What I am looking at is:
R300 L&R fronts
R600c center
R100 sides
R100 rears

Thoughts?

Also still looking for a sub.

Originally Posted by sdg4vfx 

+1 re three identical speakers up front (LCR) if you can (fwiw another pair of Q300's is the exact same price as a Q600, you just end up with an extra speaker). Big difference in the sound of the front stage.
BTW, while KEF direct only sells bookshelf speakers in pairs, I've found a dealer that will sell R series bookshelf speakers or LS-50's in trio sets. They don't handle Q series unfortunately.

Originally Posted by commsysman 

Since the front speakers should go down at least to 60 Hz, and the center speaker really should only go from 120 to 3Khz, I personally think it is kind of stupid to use three identical speakers.
You DO NOT want the center speaker to produce any bass at all, and some of the best-sounding center speakers I have heard just use 4-inch drivers (an example is the Cambridge Audio S50, which is excellent0.
In my opinion, a lot of the "muddiness" and poor speech quality in systems is due to having center speaker drivers that are TOO DAMN LARGE FOR GOOD MIDRANGE PERFORMANCE.