Kef q100 vs q150 comparison - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 68Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 05:10 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Kef q100 vs q150 comparison

As a forum member here who has jumped down that damn rabbit hole, I recently decided to buy a set of Kef q150s. As a background, I have been running 5 x q100s in my main listening setup for the better part of the last year. Over the summer I also purchased a set of Wharfedale Diamond 10.1s which I have been swapping in the L/R spot periodically since then. Those Wharfedales will eventually go in an office whenever I get around to wiring it. Maybe I can add those into this comparison if anyone wants….

Look:
Both look nice but with different finishes. Personally I like the q100 wood look slightly over the q150 (not sure what to call that), but not by any wide margin. The port in the back makes the front of the q150 look better. Also not that big of a deal to me as I have a kid and use grills. In the end, I think both look nice…its more of a matter of personal preference IMO.

Initial impressions:
I got them set pretty late on a weekday night after my kid was in bed, so I couldn’t really play them very loud. Two things stood out to me the first night.

1. I listened mostly on pure direct and felt like there was more bass presence than the q100s. I have not been listening to the q100s in pure direct very much, so I will need to try that with them again soon, but for now I am just keeping the q150s connected only.

2. The mids are definitely a lot more laid back. The first night this definitely bothered me. I did not care for this at all. After having q100s for almost a full year and being quite used to their sound signature, this was quite different. I am used to stringed instruments and vocals being very pronounced and ‘out there’. Some of the music I listened to made these same sounds feel a bit lost within the rest of the sound. By the second night, I think I was growing a little more used to them because the mids sounded much better to me, though still a little bit lost still. I remember l0nestar8 describing the q150s as having scooped out mids, and I do see what he means now. I will say that the more I listen to them, the less I notice this (so far). We’ll see after more time.

These are impressions after 2 days with the q150s. More to come……

Edit.....still day 2 but I feel the need to add this... With the q100s I would at times turn up the volume but get to a point where that volume brought out the harshness (brightness), which then made me turn them back down. With the q150s I have found myself turning them up (often to try to hear more of the mids I am used to hearing in the q100s), and I get more of those mids and no harshness. Just a few minutes ago I realized this. It is certainly pleasant.


******************Update 12/14******************
Further thoughts after about a week and a half with the q150s……

As another user put it earlier today in the main KEF thread, the q150s make me want to turn up the volume. I find myself feeling the same way. Is this a good thing? My answer would be, if you do turn it up, you are rewarded. I generally listen at not really high volumes with the q100s, but with the q150s, the lower volumes seem to really bring attention to those “scooped out mids” as l0nestar8 would say.

@Zorba922 , to follow up more on your question about the “laid back” mids and detail. I would say that at lower volumes, some of the detail is a little lost because it is somewhat in the background. But when you turn the volume up, you do find that the detail is really there after all. I found myself regularly listening to the q150s at a higher level, and they were much more enjoyable that way.

Others have stated that the bass of the q150 and q100 are basically the same. I will say that in my room, I definitely hear more bass coming from the q150s. For that first week plus, I would go back and forth between 2 channel (with sub) and pure direct (no sub). With the q100s, while they do put out a decent amount of bass, I never felt they had quite enough for me to use them in 2.0. The q150s on the other hand, give me just enough to make it work (for my ears anyway).

For the first few days I was really starting to noticing the scooped out mids that l0nestar8 spoke of. I would listen to albums and really felt some of the midrange was really distant and quite lacking in detail. But then I would listen to other albums and they sounded much much better. Perhaps these speakers really have opened my ears to poor recordings that I have often read about here? Once I recognized this, I made it a point to listen to more recent albums, and also be aware of what my source was. I also turned up the volume a bit per my other notes above. Those changes made a significant difference in the sound.

************************************************

******************Update 1/14********************

Sorry. Had a long trip during the holidays and it has taken awhile for things to calm down here. Just wanted to post some further impressions. I had hoped to post a little more before the trip, but just got too busy.

Before the break, I was feeling like my ears had finally broken in with the q150s. So after 2.5 weeks away from any kind of decent speakers (mostly stock car stereo and a jawbone bluetooth speaker) I was more than excited to get back home to some good listening again. We got in late night and I put the little kid to bed and plopped my butt down on the couch ready to treat my ears. That night I felt the q150s were lacking. For the next few days I felt more of the same... they just didn't excite me like I had hoped. The detail that wowed me initially with the q100s seemed to be missing from the q150s. I was starting to think I would return them.

But then I read some others talking in the KEF owners thread about listening volumes, and this past Saturday when the rest of the family was gone, I tested out playing both the q100s and q150s at higher volumes. That's when the forwardness of the q100 started to become a little uncomfortable to the ears. I switched to the q150s and the detail that was missing came alive, and no harshness. I wish I could combine these two speakers in order to get one set that stay detailed at lower volumes AND is able to be turned up without any harshness.

There is still 2 weeks in the return window, but I am not sure what to do. Perhaps I'll keep them and periodically switch them back and forth with the q100s that are being used for surrounds (I originally was running 5 x q100s).

************************************************

******************Update 2/05********************

Well my 60 day return period passed last week. I was considering sending them back, but in the end I kept them. I still think I mostly prefer the q100s in my main setup, but they are close. I will probably end up putting these in my office setup whenever I finally get around to wiring it. Until then, I may keep switching the q150s and q100s back and forth, but to be honest, after almost 2 months of doing just that, I think my brain (not ears) is a little fatigued from constantly trying to find every little difference between the speakers.

I'd also bet that I'm in the minority, and that most people would prefer the q150 for their ears.

q150s
Pros: More laid back and easier on the ears. No ear fatigue. Slightly better bass. To my ears the q150s have just enough bass to run in 2.0 (other people will certainly have different opinions). These speakers beg to be turned up, and reward you for doing so.

Cons: The laid back sound makes them sound a little less detailed to my ears, especially at lower volumes. The detail is there, just more in the background. This is less noticeable at higher volumes.

q100s
Pros: While they still have very good bass as well for a speaker this size, it is just not quite enough for my ears to run in 2.0. It might be enough for others. Add a certain 'breathiness' and level of detail because of the forwardness of the upper mids and lower treble ranges. They just sound a little more detailed to me. I definitely think they are the better speaker for HT and surrounds.

Cons: Forwardness can cause ear fatigue. This is especially noticeable as you turn them up. These speakers definitely ride the line of bright. For me, I don't like to call them bright. I prefer to characterize them as 'very forward'. But to others they obviously cross over that line. These speakers at times may make you think twice about turning them up too high.


Overall I would say they are quite similar. Another poster here tested out both speakers and reported that the bass output in his setup was the same for both speakers. I guess that just goes to show the differences in room setup (my best guess anyways). Don't think that the q150s do not have detail either, because they certainly do. I think they will make a fine 2.0 setup in my office. As it will be almost exclusively music, these will work quite well. I did almost send back because my heart was also set on getting the Philharmonic AA+s some day, but since they recently got shut down in production, it made my decision that much easier. I will continue to swap the q150s and q100s as my L/R, and if anything changes in my opinion, I will try to remember to post.

************************************************

Last edited by D33vious; 02-05-2019 at 03:55 PM.
D33vious is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 05:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
aarons915's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 944
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 572 Post(s)
Liked: 529
I went the opposite direction you did and started with Q150, then a friend bought some Q100 and let me try them. Being used to the Q150, which I agree are a bit laid back, the Q100 sounded harsh to my ears, so much so that I didn't really listen to them much. Now I have the LS50, which have sweet highs but aren't harsh like the Q100, not that I'm trying to spend more of your money haha. The Q150 definitely need a bit of toe-in to take advantage of the on-axis highs where the LS50 I point straight ahead. Enjoy though, especially at the black friday price, there really is nothing that I've heard that matches the Q150 in the budget category.
aarons915 is online now  
post #3 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 05:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1907 Post(s)
Liked: 1620
nice thoughts, i am interested in seeing how this progresses..
sdg4vfx likes this.

YAMAHA TSR 5790.. front l/r emotiva b1's and /or kef q100's ..BIC v1220.....Emotiva basx10.... ascend cbm 170 center.. polk t15 rears..samsung 55" j620d
bedroom .. YAMAHA r-xv 383... front l/r.. wharfedale 10.1s... ascend cbm 170 center ... Emotiva basx8... samsung ku6300 50 in
Lp85253 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 06:39 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by aarons915 View Post
I went the opposite direction you did and started with Q150, then a friend bought some Q100 and let me try them. Being used to the Q150, which I agree are a bit laid back, the Q100 sounded harsh to my ears, so much so that I didn't really listen to them much. Now I have the LS50, which have sweet highs but aren't harsh like the Q100, not that I'm trying to spend more of your money haha. The Q150 definitely need a bit of toe-in to take advantage of the on-axis highs where the LS50 I point straight ahead. Enjoy though, especially at the black friday price, there really is nothing that I've heard that matches the Q150 in the budget category.
Interestingly enough I happened to notice someone selling 2 pairs of R100s at $400/pair earlier today. I was so close to jumping on that.....the wife woulda killed me yet I still kept considering. Needless to say, They went away fast. I probably should have, but then again I may have ended up losing my sanity from her reaction.
D33vious is offline  
post #5 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 06:49 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Zorba922's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 12,250
Mentioned: 208 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6862 Post(s)
Liked: 5134
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
Over the summer I also purchased a set of Wharfedale Diamond 10.1s which I have been swapping in the L/R spot periodically since then. Those Wharfedales will eventually go in an office whenever I get around to wiring it. Maybe I can add those into this comparison if anyone wants….
Yes, please do.

I auditioned the Q100s for 15 days courtesy of Best Buy and while I liked them the first couple days, their treble wore on me and by the end when I switched back to the 10.1 my ears were incredibly relieved.

When you say that the Q150 have "laid back" mids do you mean that in terms of the mids not being as forward, but still having clarity?

I love my 10.1 being laid-back, but I don't find their mids lacking in detail at all, that would be a better description of their highs which are certainly rolled off...for lower resolution content this is actually quite a good thing IMO.

~ Are you a "geek hobbyist" obsessed with squeezing out that last 5-10% improvement? The economy will thank you...especially the Chinese one. Or are you more of a get-set-and-forget "casual user" who simply wants to increase your enjoyment of movies, TV and gaming? Relax, HT isn't rocket science, nor does it have to cost an arm and a leg---especially if you ignore the aforementioned vocal minority. And remember to smile...it's just a silly hobby, after all. :)
Zorba922 is offline  
post #6 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 07:27 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Curious...has anyone seen any measurements for the Q150?
dbPlan is offline  
post #7 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 08:30 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbPlan View Post
Curious...has anyone seen any measurements for the Q150?
No, but there are quite a few of the Q350's which shouldn't be that different (aside from more bass). And actually, I believe @aarons915 posted some of his own measurements comparing to LS50s (I think). Maybe he'll chime in with a link/post.


Purple trace (topmost):




Found it (blue line):


You can see the overall trend. I'm a big fan of the Uni-Q technology and pretty much all Kefs are impossibly smooth. But, they all have unique voicing to cater to different tastes. These Q150's have very nice mids and treble extension. Crazy smooth. The upper mids/lower treble is fairly laid-back and is pretty much the opposite of the Q100 where that region is an upward sloping line instead.

The LS50's are somewhere in between. All in all, I 100% agree with this review. Well done!!
audiofreak38 likes this.

Last edited by l0nestar8; 12-05-2018 at 08:50 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #8 of 79 Old 12-05-2018, 08:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba922 View Post
Yes, please do.

I auditioned the Q100s for 15 days courtesy of Best Buy and while I liked them the first couple days, their treble wore on me and by the end when I switched back to the 10.1 my ears were incredibly relieved.

When you say that the Q150 have "laid back" mids do you mean that in terms of the mids not being as forward, but still having clarity?

I love my 10.1 being laid-back, but I don't find their mids lacking in detail at all, that would be a better description of their highs which are certainly rolled off...for lower resolution content this is actually quite a good thing IMO.
Same exact thoughts here about the Q100s and the 10.1s. In fact, I'm not really sure I'd call the Wharfedales laid-back at all in the mids. They sound dead flat to me. The lack of treble extension (they do have an early roll-off) gives it a nice warm character but not really laid-back (distant sounding) at all, imo.

I'd even argue that the upper mids are little bit elevated.

Just my $0.02, of course.
Zorba922 and Lp85253 like this.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #9 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 09:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: NB, Canada
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 434 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba922 View Post
Yes, please do.

I auditioned the Q100s for 15 days courtesy of Best Buy and while I liked them the first couple days, their treble wore on me and by the end when I switched back to the 10.1 my ears were incredibly relieved.

When you say that the Q150 have "laid back" mids do you mean that in terms of the mids not being as forward, but still having clarity?

I love my 10.1 being laid-back, but I don't find their mids lacking in detail at all, that would be a better description of their highs which are certainly rolled off...for lower resolution content this is actually quite a good thing IMO.
thats interesting, i'm curious what where you powering them with?

First i am extremely sensitive to bright speakers and i have no issues with my Q100's (powered by a yamaha a-s501). I also have Q300 which are laid back and mirage m-190 which are extremely laid back. My fluance SX6/XL5F are what i would call Harsh/bright at moderate/louder volumes. The Q100's are forward but not bright imo. My Q650C are a lot brighter than the Q100's but still not harsh. This also leads me to believe the Q350's are most likely brighter than the Q150's.

i'm wondering if the difference between my experience and yours was amplification?

Speakers: KEF Q100 / Q300 / Q750 / Q650C, Fluance Signature Series Bookshelf / SX6 / XL5F, Mirage M-190 Subwoofers: Outlaw Ultra X12 (x2), BIC H100-II Receiver: Denon AVR-X1400H Integrated Amplifier: Yamaha A-S501, Fosi Audio TPA3116 mini amp Extras: MiniDSP Umik-1 Headphones: Philips SPH9500s, Audio Tech. ATH-M40x, Takstar Pro 82.
macgallant is offline  
post #10 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 09:57 AM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 392
I ran Q100s as fronts(now using as rears) and really liked them. I sometimes miss that extra energy towards the top when listening to natural instruments, especially jazz, classical, and acoustic americana. Some rock music can sound harsh, but there is a lot of variability in recording quality. I can see how some might not prefer that sound, but I guess that's my preference coming from old Paradigms, Infinitys, and B&Ws. It looks like they refined them a bit with the 150s, which will, no doubt, appeal to a wider audience.

I'm a big fan of Kef and the Uni-Q technology, as well. I got my Qs for a ridiculously low closeout price, and I remember being amazed how good they sounded for Kef's entry level speaker. They image very well. and even in a surround role, they opened up my rear soundstage compared to the other speakers I was using back there.

Thanks for posting your impressions.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
post #11 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 01:09 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Zorba922's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 12,250
Mentioned: 208 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6862 Post(s)
Liked: 5134
Quote:
Originally Posted by macgallant View Post
thats interesting, i'm curious what where you powering them with?

First i am extremely sensitive to bright speakers and i have no issues with my Q100's (powered by a yamaha a-s501). I also have Q300 which are laid back and mirage m-190 which are extremely laid back. My fluance SX6/XL5F are what i would call Harsh/bright at moderate/louder volumes. The Q100's are forward but not bright imo. My Q650C are a lot brighter than the Q100's but still not harsh. This also leads me to believe the Q350's are most likely brighter than the Q150's.

i'm wondering if the difference between my experience and yours was amplification?
At that time I was using a Panasonic XR-55, which has digital-switching amps and uses dual amps for the FL/FR. Have never had any lack of headroom with that receiver despite its modest pricetag and specs, so I kind of doubt it would have caused any adverse effects.

I also would not call the Q100 "bright" either, not in the same way that the SVS Primes or entry level Klipsch are "bright"---and if my usage were mainly HT and rock music rather than 90% midrange-dominant, slower tempo music I am sure I would have appreciated them more. Generally speaking the Q100 were just had a very intense and forward presentation, which perhaps did not go over well in my room with its hardwood floors and lots of hard surfaces.
sdg4vfx and Lp85253 like this.

~ Are you a "geek hobbyist" obsessed with squeezing out that last 5-10% improvement? The economy will thank you...especially the Chinese one. Or are you more of a get-set-and-forget "casual user" who simply wants to increase your enjoyment of movies, TV and gaming? Relax, HT isn't rocket science, nor does it have to cost an arm and a leg---especially if you ignore the aforementioned vocal minority. And remember to smile...it's just a silly hobby, after all. :)
Zorba922 is offline  
post #12 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 01:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba922 View Post
I also would not call the Q100 "bright" either, not in the same way that the SVS Primes or entry level Klipsch are "bright"---and if my usage were mainly HT and rock music rather than 90% midrange-dominant, slower tempo music I am sure I would have appreciated them more. Generally speaking the Q100 were just had a very intense and forward presentation, which perhaps did not go over well in my room with its hardwood floors and lots of hard surfaces.
Very good description of the Q100s, Zorbs.
Zorba922 and Lp85253 like this.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #13 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 02:28 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1907 Post(s)
Liked: 1620
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba922 View Post
At that time I was using a Panasonic XR-55, which has digital-switching amps and uses dual amps for the FL/FR. Have never had any lack of headroom with that receiver despite its modest pricetag and specs, so I kind of doubt it would have caused any adverse effects.

I also would not call the Q100 "bright" either, not in the same way that the SVS Primes or entry level Klipsch are "bright"---and if my usage were mainly HT and rock music rather than 90% midrange-dominant, slower tempo music I am sure I would have appreciated them more. Generally speaking the Q100 were just had a very intense and forward presentation, which perhaps did not go over well in my room with its hardwood floors and lots of hard surfaces.
i too would say "forward" more than "bright" is a major factor with the q100's... they have good treble extension , but that isn't what killed my buzz .. it was a shouty presentation.. low volumes , i thought were great ,, high volume , not so much...

YAMAHA TSR 5790.. front l/r emotiva b1's and /or kef q100's ..BIC v1220.....Emotiva basx10.... ascend cbm 170 center.. polk t15 rears..samsung 55" j620d
bedroom .. YAMAHA r-xv 383... front l/r.. wharfedale 10.1s... ascend cbm 170 center ... Emotiva basx8... samsung ku6300 50 in
Lp85253 is offline  
post #14 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 03:43 PM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: NB, Canada
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 434 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba922 View Post
At that time I was using a Panasonic XR-55, which has digital-switching amps and uses dual amps for the FL/FR. Have never had any lack of headroom with that receiver despite its modest pricetag and specs, so I kind of doubt it would have caused any adverse effects.

I also would not call the Q100 "bright" either, not in the same way that the SVS Primes or entry level Klipsch are "bright"---and if my usage were mainly HT and rock music rather than 90% midrange-dominant, slower tempo music I am sure I would have appreciated them more. Generally speaking the Q100 were just had a very intense and forward presentation, which perhaps did not go over well in my room with its hardwood floors and lots of hard surfaces.

room size and usage was probably the biggest difference between our experiences.

I use mine with my desktop in a small 10x12 sealed room and it's also fully furnished(kind of cramped lol). I get a lot of room gain/bass in this room I also listen mostly to rock/prog rock/fusion but since it's nearfield in a small room the volume is generally on the low side and never more than moderate/somewhat loud.

it's always interesting to hear peoples experiences. Yes we all hear differently but our room/setup is usually different as well .


I think you would enjoy the Q300's laid back sound more than the Q100's if you could ever find a used pair.
Zorba922 likes this.

Speakers: KEF Q100 / Q300 / Q750 / Q650C, Fluance Signature Series Bookshelf / SX6 / XL5F, Mirage M-190 Subwoofers: Outlaw Ultra X12 (x2), BIC H100-II Receiver: Denon AVR-X1400H Integrated Amplifier: Yamaha A-S501, Fosi Audio TPA3116 mini amp Extras: MiniDSP Umik-1 Headphones: Philips SPH9500s, Audio Tech. ATH-M40x, Takstar Pro 82.
macgallant is offline  
post #15 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 08:46 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorba922 View Post
Yes, please do.

I auditioned the Q100s for 15 days courtesy of Best Buy and while I liked them the first couple days, their treble wore on me and by the end when I switched back to the 10.1 my ears were incredibly relieved.

When you say that the Q150 have "laid back" mids do you mean that in terms of the mids not being as forward, but still having clarity?

I love my 10.1 being laid-back, but I don't find their mids lacking in detail at all, that would be a better description of their highs which are certainly rolled off...for lower resolution content this is actually quite a good thing IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
Same exact thoughts here about the Q100s and the 10.1s. In fact, I'm not really sure I'd call the Wharfedales laid-back at all in the mids. They sound dead flat to me. The lack of treble extension (they do have an early roll-off) gives it a nice warm character but not really laid-back (distant sounding) at all, imo.

I'd even argue that the upper mids are little bit elevated.

Just my $0.02, of course.
Zorba, perhaps it is more the upper mids. The best way I can state it in my mind is, where the q100s are forward and 'in your face', much of those same sounds are a bit more recessed and in the background on the q150s. I don't want to say that they lose detail, but in a way they do because they are less pronounced. I am beginning to think it relates a little more to volume..... I tend to listen at moderate to low levels. Yesterday I was listening a bit louder and was hearing more details. Perhaps these are made to play a little louder, and might also explain why the q100s have worked so well for me.

I think I would agree with lonestar's take on the wharfedale 10.1 mids. They certainly feel like they are very much 'there' for lack of a better term. Not far away and not up in your face either. I do really enjoy the 10.1s as well. My biggest complaint about them are the lack of detailed highs. I will add more to the original thread in regards to the 10.1s at some point.
Zorba922 and Lp85253 like this.
D33vious is offline  
post #16 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 09:05 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Interesting conversation on the perceived brightness/forwardness of the q100s. I know that both zorba and lonestar have 'bright' rooms with hardwood floors and other factors. I'd be curious to know a little bit about other peoples' rooms. Mine is a large open basement that is carpeted. I'm not far enough along with the q150s yet for any definitive opinion, but I do already at times feel the same as Vergiliusm in sometimes missing that extra 'energy' as he called it. I remember zorba's thread comparing the 10.1s to the q100s and he talked about hearing the breath of singers (or something similar). Whereas he did not necessarily enjoy that, or at least miss that in the 10.1s, I really like that aspect of the q100s. I do also agree with Lp85253 that it is at higher volumes where the q100s can sometimes be fatiguing.
sdg4vfx, Zorba922 and Lp85253 like this.
D33vious is offline  
post #17 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 09:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1907 Post(s)
Liked: 1620
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
Interesting conversation on the perceived brightness/forwardness of the q100s. I know that both zorba and lonestar have 'bright' rooms with hardwood floors and other factors. I'd be curious to know a little bit about other peoples' rooms. Mine is a large open basement that is carpeted. I'm not far enough along with the q150s yet for any definitive opinion, but I do already at times feel the same as Vergiliusm in sometimes missing that extra 'energy' as he called it. I remember zorba's thread comparing the 10.1s to the q100s and he talked about hearing the breath of singers (or something similar). Whereas he did not necessarily enjoy that, or at least miss that in the 10.1s, I really like that aspect of the q100s. I do also agree with Lp85253 that it is at higher volumes where the q100s can sometimes be fatiguing.
my room was pretty bright when i 1st got the q100's .. since then i have added carpet and a few wall hangings that dampened it a bit(i would assume).. i think now it might be +/- about "neutral" as compared to bright or dead...
Zorba922 likes this.

YAMAHA TSR 5790.. front l/r emotiva b1's and /or kef q100's ..BIC v1220.....Emotiva basx10.... ascend cbm 170 center.. polk t15 rears..samsung 55" j620d
bedroom .. YAMAHA r-xv 383... front l/r.. wharfedale 10.1s... ascend cbm 170 center ... Emotiva basx8... samsung ku6300 50 in
Lp85253 is offline  
post #18 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 09:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
I do really enjoy the 10.1s as well. My biggest complaint about them are the lack of detailed highs. I will add more to the original thread in regards to the 10.1s at some point.
I really can't disagree with anything you just wrote.

The achilles heel of basically all Wharfedales is their treble detail (lack of). But, they make up for it in other ways, and what they do well, they do very well.

I really think you are bang on about the merits and demerits of laid-back and forward signatures. Each have their advantages and disadvantages. It's very much a preference thing.

For instance, you don't need much volume for a forward speaker, but you lose some lows and warmth and the highs tend to "always be on." Conversely, a laid-back speaker will need a little extra volume for midrange clarity, but then the treble and lows can get in the way and things get messy and disconnected. It's such a tough balancing act and I don't envy speaker designers at all.

After all this analysis, you might come to find that you prefer something a little more neutral. But at that point, your family might disown you, haha.

One last point in your favor though is this: You now possess three speakers that are almost perfect budget examples of the three major sound signatures: neutral, forward, and laid-back. Maybe you want certain aspects of each, but you should be able to have a much better picture of what you like and don't like, and then go onward from there.
Zorba922, Lp85253 and D33vious like this.

Last edited by l0nestar8; 12-06-2018 at 09:23 PM.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #19 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 09:37 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
After all this analysis, you might come to find that you prefer something a little more neutral. But at that point, your family might disown you, haha.

One last point in your favor though is this: You now possess three speakers that are almost perfect budget examples of the three major sound signatures: neutral, forward, and laid-back. Maybe you want certain aspects of each, but you should be able to have a much better picture of what you like and don't like, and then go onward from there.
Well there is one more set that I really have eyes on, and you know what that is from our conversations! Will those be the perfect (or closest to) ones for me? I'm gonna have to sell off some speakers before I get any more.....I still have my old RBH R5bi's and a set of Infinity P363 towers plus the matching center. If I was single I'd be in bro heaven, but being a married guy I am approaching marriage counseling..lol
D33vious is offline  
post #20 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 10:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
l0nestar8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 922
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 677
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
Well there is one more set that I really have eyes on, and you know what that is from our conversations! Will those be the perfect (or closest to) ones for me? I'm gonna have to sell off some speakers before I get any more.....I still have my old RBH R5bi's and a set of Infinity P363 towers plus the matching center. If I was single I'd be in bro heaven, but being a married guy I am approaching marriage counseling..lol
You know...it sure wouldn't hurt to dust off your old RBH's. Might be interesting to see where they fall in the broad spectrum of things.

Also, "bro heaven" ... too funny, lol.
l0nestar8 is offline  
post #21 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 10:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sdg4vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,829
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Enjoying and very interested in this thread. I ran Q100s all the way around for my HT for several years and really liked them. That room was very dampened however - carpeted floor and floor-to-ceiling curtains on three walls.

Living in an apartment for the last year (work being done on new house, waiting for daughter to graduate HS). The current room is bright - hardwood floors, long clean walls/ceiling - and I immediately noticed a difference with Q100s. Put them in storage and used the move as an opportunity to audition several small(-ish) bookshelf speakers. Currently running some Q-Acoustics and impressed with their sound at that price.

I don't remember if this was mentioned yet in the thread, but the one thing I really miss about the Q100's is the wide and detailed imaging. Many of the small-ish bookshelf speakers I auditioned had excellent sq, but none matched the KEF imaging - maybe it's the UniQ concentric driver?

Curious how the imaging of the Q150 compares to the Q100?
Lp85253 likes this.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My neighbors all listen to great music. Whether they like it or not.
sdg4vfx is offline  
post #22 of 79 Old 12-06-2018, 11:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
pase22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 6,655
Mentioned: 78 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3008 Post(s)
Liked: 2496
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
Interesting conversation on the perceived brightness/forwardness of the q100s. I know that both zorba and lonestar have 'bright' rooms with hardwood floors and other factors. I'd be curious to know a little bit about other peoples' rooms. Mine is a large open basement that is carpeted. I'm not far enough along with the q150s yet for any definitive opinion, but I do already at times feel the same as Vergiliusm in sometimes missing that extra 'energy' as he called it. I remember zorba's thread comparing the 10.1s to the q100s and he talked about hearing the breath of singers (or something similar). Whereas he did not necessarily enjoy that, or at least miss that in the 10.1s, I really like that aspect of the q100s. I do also agree with Lp85253 that it is at higher volumes where the q100s can sometimes be fatiguing.
To me they sound lifeless at low volume (in stereo mode) and overbearing at high volume, though some believe amplification could be the issue. At moderate volume AKA: the sweet spot they do sound quite good, but can be a little forward (not bright) on some material. I'm in basement with linoleum flooring and a cluttered room. I suspect adding a rug and reconfiguring the room would be helpful. I did order a Denon X3400H (on sale new not "B" stock for $699 CDN @ Gibby's if anyone's interested) so we'll see if that makes any difference.
Lp85253 likes this.

Kef Q100 FL/FR,SL/SR, Q200C, SVS SB-2000, Denon AVR-X3400H, , Panasonic 50" Plasma, Xbox One.
Bedroom: JBL Loft 50 , Loft 20, Bic F-12, Denon AVR-S710W, PS3, 32" Insigna LED.
pase22 is online now  
post #23 of 79 Old 12-07-2018, 03:33 AM
Advanced Member
 
Vergiliusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: The Land of Enchantment
Posts: 580
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 208 Post(s)
Liked: 392
Quote:
I'd be curious to know a little bit about other peoples' rooms.
Mine is a smallish living room with carpet and a large upholstered sofa and recliner. I encouraged my girlfriend to let me hang a couple pieces of her wall art instead of paintings because they act as great diffusers. I didn't tell her that, but it's a win-win in my book. Initially, she had a console between the fronts, which affected imaging, but thankfully it is now in another room.

Quote:
I don't remember if this was mentioned yet in the thread, but the one thing I really miss about the Q100's is the wide and detailed imaging.
Agreed and I would chalk it up to the Uni-Q. I was able to get a wide sound stage for stereo listening with no toe-in. Besides the detail, it is the other great strength of the speaker, imo.
sdg4vfx likes this.

"Rock and roll is alive and alright" Sloan
Vergiliusm is offline  
post #24 of 79 Old 12-08-2018, 12:24 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post
I don't remember if this was mentioned yet in the thread, but the one thing I really miss about the Q100's is the wide and detailed imaging. Many of the small-ish bookshelf speakers I auditioned had excellent sq, but none matched the KEF imaging - maybe it's the UniQ concentric driver?

Curious how the imaging of the Q150 compares to the Q100?
So far as I have heard, the q150s seem to have that same great imaging as the q100s. I guess I have been lucky in that just about every set of speakers I have purchased has been quite good at imaging, so I'm not sure if I quite have the ear for ones that are not. I suppose I will know it once I hear it.
D33vious is offline  
post #25 of 79 Old 12-08-2018, 06:45 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
audiofreak38's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,591
Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 740 Post(s)
Liked: 1056
Based upon my own reading, as well as, threads like this- there is no doubt in my mind that the Q150's would be more to my liking. Right now, I can not opt for a set. But, as soon as I can I will give them a try. The R300's would be even more ideal, but they are also much more expensive. Just wished I had some disposable income right now as I would be all over the Q150's for only $299 shipped! Excellent thread!


Cheers,

Phil
Zorba922 likes this.
audiofreak38 is offline  
post #26 of 79 Old 12-08-2018, 09:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: NB, Canada
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 434 Post(s)
Liked: 224
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
Interesting conversation on the perceived brightness/forwardness of the q100s. I know that both zorba and lonestar have 'bright' rooms with hardwood floors and other factors. I'd be curious to know a little bit about other peoples' rooms. Mine is a large open basement that is carpeted. I'm not far enough along with the q150s yet for any definitive opinion, but I do already at times feel the same as Vergiliusm in sometimes missing that extra 'energy' as he called it. I remember zorba's thread comparing the 10.1s to the q100s and he talked about hearing the breath of singers (or something similar). Whereas he did not necessarily enjoy that, or at least miss that in the 10.1s, I really like that aspect of the q100s. I do also agree with Lp85253 that it is at higher volumes where the q100s can sometimes be fatiguing.
In a large room(3500-5000 cu.ft. +) i always recommend looking at 6 1/2" speakers(Q350, Diamon 225's etc) or something with a dedicated bass driver(R300 etc). Depending on your listening levels you may risk over-driving/compressing the q150's or any 5 1/4" driver (i'm sure there are exceptions).

Speakers: KEF Q100 / Q300 / Q750 / Q650C, Fluance Signature Series Bookshelf / SX6 / XL5F, Mirage M-190 Subwoofers: Outlaw Ultra X12 (x2), BIC H100-II Receiver: Denon AVR-X1400H Integrated Amplifier: Yamaha A-S501, Fosi Audio TPA3116 mini amp Extras: MiniDSP Umik-1 Headphones: Philips SPH9500s, Audio Tech. ATH-M40x, Takstar Pro 82.
macgallant is offline  
post #27 of 79 Old 12-08-2018, 02:15 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
sdg4vfx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 1,829
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Liked: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by D33vious View Post
So far as I have heard, the q150s seem to have that same great imaging as the q100s. I guess I have been lucky in that just about every set of speakers I have purchased has been quite good at imaging, so I'm not sure if I quite have the ear for ones that are not. I suppose I will know it once I hear it.
FWIW, to my ears (and any other pertinent disclaimers) here's how I typically check/rate imaging. (I always check/rate this while just listening to stereo, i.e LR fronts, only. Easier to hear for me.)

Good imaging is when I can easily hear three distinct sound sources/images - nice separation between the left and right images with a distinct center image (typically more forward).

What I consider great imaging is when the two speakers seem to create multiple sound sources/images. An example would be if I'm listening to small jazz ensemble and each instrument sounds like it is coming from a different place in the room. (I've seen some articles/reviews refer to this as "holographic imaging".)

Almost every KEF I've listened to had great imaging.

Always curious how other folks test and categorize something like imaging!
Lp85253 likes this.
sdg4vfx is offline  
post #28 of 79 Old 12-08-2018, 02:23 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1907 Post(s)
Liked: 1620
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdg4vfx View Post
FWIW, to my ears (and any other pertinent disclaimers) here's how I typically check/rate imaging. (I always check/rate this while just listening to stereo, i.e LR fronts, only. Easier to hear for me.)

Good imaging is when I can easily hear three distinct sound sources/images - nice separation between the left and right images with a distinct center image (typically more forward).

What I consider great imaging is when the two speakers seem to create multiple sound sources/images. An example would be if I'm listening to small jazz ensemble and each instrument sounds like it is coming from a different place in the room. (I've seen some articles/reviews refer to this as "holographic imaging".)

Almost every KEF I've listened to had great imaging.

Always curious how other folks test and categorize something like imaging!
imo, you pretty much covered it.. it's hard to describe sometimes , because there is a lot of subtle differences between speakers that image well and also when set up differently..

YAMAHA TSR 5790.. front l/r emotiva b1's and /or kef q100's ..BIC v1220.....Emotiva basx10.... ascend cbm 170 center.. polk t15 rears..samsung 55" j620d
bedroom .. YAMAHA r-xv 383... front l/r.. wharfedale 10.1s... ascend cbm 170 center ... Emotiva basx8... samsung ku6300 50 in
Lp85253 is offline  
post #29 of 79 Old 12-12-2018, 03:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 137
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by l0nestar8 View Post
No, but there are quite a few of the Q350's which shouldn't be that different (aside from more bass). And actually, I believe @aarons915 posted some of his own measurements comparing to LS50s (I think). Maybe he'll chime in with a link/post...You can see the overall trend. I'm a big fan of the Uni-Q technology and pretty much all Kefs are impossibly smooth. But, they all have unique voicing to cater to different tastes. These Q150's have very nice mids and treble extension. Crazy smooth. The upper mids/lower treble is fairly laid-back and is pretty much the opposite of the Q100 where that region is an upward sloping line instead...The LS50's are somewhere in between. All in all, I 100% agree with this review. Well done!!
Thanks. Hmm...I wonder if a little EQ/DSP could sort of turn a Q100 into a Q150. What do you think?
dbPlan is offline  
post #30 of 79 Old 12-12-2018, 04:07 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 3,984
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1907 Post(s)
Liked: 1620
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbPlan View Post
Thanks. Hmm...I wonder if a little EQ/DSP could sort of turn a Q100 into a Q150. What do you think?
i would bet against it.. i have tried to eq the q100's , they get less forward , but not nearly into the neutral/ laid back realm..

YAMAHA TSR 5790.. front l/r emotiva b1's and /or kef q100's ..BIC v1220.....Emotiva basx10.... ascend cbm 170 center.. polk t15 rears..samsung 55" j620d
bedroom .. YAMAHA r-xv 383... front l/r.. wharfedale 10.1s... ascend cbm 170 center ... Emotiva basx8... samsung ku6300 50 in
Lp85253 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off