They're just voiced a bit laid back, if you have a mic and REW you could take some measurements and try to EQ them to bring out some more detail.

Apparently they came with a rubber feet? Would those be a good replacement for an isolation pad for desk use?

much better than nothing

No my Klipsch are RB 61's. Thanks for including the bits about detail and clarity that is one of the things I like about the Q100's. I think I am looking for a different flavor profile in speakers and need to switch it up.

Klipsch and KEF have a very different sound, IMO. Klipsch is touted for HT by many for their efficiency and clarity. I have seen people (including KEF owners) say that KEF is better for music than HT but I would disgree. I think KEFs lend themselves very well to HT use.

Why don't you try the Q100s as fronts with a phantom center setup just to see what you think?

The q100s especially seem to be a bit more forward (at least that is my understanding) than other KEF speakers. Personally though, I have only heard the q100s and q150s, but I think the q100s especially would excel in HT because of their forwardness and detail. Just my 2 cents FWIW.

I can only compare the previous generation Q series (Q100, Q200c etc..) to LS50's and the Qseries are more forward. I think Q100's are very good speakers that image well and have good detail and clarity at a reasonable price. I mostly use them for light TV viewing in the bedroom these days, however when I had them in my main setup I felt they handled both music and movies very well. I have nothing against Klipsch, but they're just too bright for me. If @EM3 has Klipsch and isn't bothered by the brightness, the older gen Qseries will certainly not be a problem for brightness.

Agree. My R3's are wicked good for HT as well as music, very clear with excellent imaging in both. Even in just 2.0 (2.2 with subs) they routinely surprise me with phantom surround from the down-mixed audio.

So I think that I have determined I want to buy the KEF speakers to upgrade my towers (will pair with a q600c or q650c).

Is there a big difference between the q700 and the q750?

I've scoured the internet to find differences between the two. All I can find is that the 750 has an upgraded uni-q. The q700s new are about 40 percent cheaper than the q750s refurbished on accessories 4 less. The q700s seem almost like a no brainer to me.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

There are differences in the woofer too. It's got improvements to the whole thing and is a little more responsive. I haven't dug into the crossover to see if they've changed anything there.

The Q700's are indeed a great bargain right now, though probably only available in black now whereas at one time you could also choose white, European Walnut, or Rosewood finish.

Hello, I'm looking for some advice. I'm planning to upgrade my speakers and have complied a short list. My room is 21'x14' with high ceiling, tile floor (with a rug), lots of windows and open to a hallway. All that to say, my room has lots of reflections and is bright with echos. I'm working on taming the reflections in the room, but know that some of it is-what-it-is. I'll be driving the speakers with an Arcam AVR850 using Dirac room correction in a 5.1.2 config. The sub is an SVS SB-16 Ultra and the Atmos are an unidentified in-ceiling brand. Currently I have Definitive Mythos ST in the front, CS-8080 for center channel and Mythos Ones for surrounds.

Short List (in order of most to least expensive):
Option 1 - Revel Performa BE F226BE, Performa3 C208 center and ? surrounds
Option 2 - KEF R11, RC2 center and ? for surrounds
Option 3 - KEF R7, RC2 center and ? for surrounds
Option 4 - Definitive Mythos ST-L, CS-9080 center with either the ST as surrounds or keep the Ones in surround duty

I lean towards a warmer or transparent sounding speaker. Bright speakers, while sounding great at first, are very hard and fatiguing on my ears (I'm talking to you B&W < Diamond series and SVS Ultras).

I've heard the KEF R11 and the Revel F226BE but under less than ideal circumstances. I like them both but didn't get to spend much time with them.

Sound quality+value+long term investment+aesthetics are my key decision factors.

Any thoughts or suggestions?

I had DT 8060ST speakers for a while and could not get them to sound the way I like it. With KEF it was different right from the start. The change in sound quality was so apparent I could not believe my ears. I am quite positive that once you hear KEF speakers at home you will fall in love with the sound all over again. Do not know if you believe in the break-in process, but over time both R300s and R700s had displayed a gradual improvement in the bass. Unlike with DT speakers I did not even have to move KEF speakers around to find their best spot, they just always sounded amazing.
Eventually, when money allows, I will get either a dedicated amplifier so I could add a MiniDSP with Dirac or get an AVR with built-in Dirac capability, though REW shows no significant problems in my living room and Yamaha doing a decent job with its own calibration.
As for surround speakers, get either LS50s or R3s.
Give KF92 sub a try. I have not heard it personally, but hearing what Kube 10b and 12b subs are capable of, I bet KF92 is going to be even better.

Just my 2 cents...

[QUOTE=sivadselim;58826828]Klipsch and KEF have a very different sound, IMO. Klipsch is touted for HT by many for their efficiency and clarity. I have seen people (including KEF owners) say that KEF is better for music than HT but I would disgree. I think KEFs lend themselves very well to HT use.

Why don't you try the Q100s as fronts with a phantom center setup just to see what you think?[/QUOTE


I sort of did for a while and found something a little off but it was the fact that with being a "super genius" left my Klipsch center channel hooked up and to be honest with that combination I could tell exactly where the dialogue was coming from. Before I could unhook it and really try it I had to return everything to where I had it because my dad was coming home from the hospital with a walker and his health was really declining. He was bad to run it into furniture and walls before he passed away. Plus where I had placed them was at the opening of a hallway and it would of made it difficult for him to navigate. Since he has passed I guess I could try it that way now.

Thanks for the input. The brightness of the Klipsch never bothered me. When I replaced my receiver/amp and went from Onkyo to Yamaha I noticed the speakers tamed down also.

The new Be series from Revel seems to be some of the best speakers around these days but given your lively room and leaning towards a warmer speaker, the R series might be better for you. All of the new R series are voiced similarly, so the R11 or R7 would be fine. Surrounds depend on how much room you've got, if you want to mount something on the wall I'd get the R8a and just angle them down.

Thanks for the advice @aarons915 . Are the Revels brighter or more clinical or just less forgiving of a lively room? The receiver has Dirac room correction, so hoping that helps with some of the room issues.

The Revels are dead neutral, that's why I was saying the R series might be better for you in a lively room. With the kind of money each setup costs I would want to compare both sets in my room, I'm sure it would be hard to find someone who has done that so we can only speculate based on measurements or auditions in other rooms.

I have only heard the Revel Studio 2 and R700s to be able to provide any comments , so take these as such. I am a fan of both Kef and Revel.

I auditioned the Revel Ultima Studio 2s and the Kef Reference 205/2s at home. The Studio 2s IMO had the superior highs (more air) but the 205/2s had the better bass response in my room. I would not call the Studio 2 bright at all. I realize the new Performa Be models are voiced a bit different and may be a bit more lively up top than the Ultimas but I would not expect bright. The F206/F208 may be more so for some. The R700s, IMO, have all the detail and strong bass but are somewhat polite, laidback or warm depending on how you want to describe them. If the F228 and C426Be existed when I was in the market, who knows.

I can state that the Kef centers are great and blend amazingly well with the floor standers for multichannel music. I am certain the R2c would work seamlessly with either R series floor stander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Q700 (and Q500/Q900) design was a flawed from the beginning. The Q750 improved on the design by sealing/isolating the Uni-Q driver while leaving the bass driver with the ideal/perfect 2:1 driver/radiator ratio. Bass radiators should always have a 2:1 ratio to the driver it's paired with.



The Passive radiators on the Q700's were an afterthought(It's literally just the bass driver without a magnet) while the Q750's we're designed from the ground up as a radiator


Bass is more controlled/tighter on the Q750, the newer Uni-Q has higher resolution as well.

I'm wondering how much better, if any, Ref 1s are than LS50s. I've integrated my Ref 1s with a pair of Velodyne HGS15s to achieve jazz bass without boom and sonic portrayal of low organ pedal notes that includes feel. I'm using a 4th order 40 Hz crossover. Before the Ref 1s, I was very impressed with the LS50s with a 80 Hz crossover. The amp chain in both cases is Ayre KX-5 twenty preamp and VX-5 Twenty amp.

The only definitive way of answering that is a rigorous test of both which would have to be blind and both properly setup with a sub. Testing a single speaker in mono also makes differences easier to spot. It's kind of a pain to set up this kind of test but it would give you your answer. I would expect the Ref 1 to win but probably not by as much as many would think, I continue to be impressed with the LS50 compared to many more expensive speakers, including many of the forum darlings.

After living with LS50's for 6 years I can honestly say that the Reference 1's are a significant upgrade.
In 5.2.4 mode or just 2 channel I find myself revisiting old music and movie favorites.
The dynamics and detail are vastly improved.

Now I have a pair of LS50's running off a PS Audio Sprout 100 which replace the KEF X300a's.

dbphd- are you using a 24db slope on both high pass and low pass?
I have found the 24/12 to be a better meld between subs and high pass.

Steve

Thanks @jima4a for the insight on the Revel and the KEF. Thanks @aarons915 for the additional info. I'm leaning heavily towards the KEF option as more laid back and warmer sounds right for my listening preference. The price difference will help fund LS50 (or something) for the surrounds.

I only use low-pass, because the passive balanced high-pass filter seemed to reduce the sense of air and detail just a bit.

I had been using four LS50s for surround with a pair of Ref 107.2s in our 14' X 19' media room, a room with framed posters, bookcases, desk, and two large recliners. I decided to try a pair of LS50s firing down the length the media room. The LS50 had previously fired at a large window in the living room. I was amazed by how good the LS50s sounded in the media room, so I gave away the 107.2s and moved the Ref 1s to the media room. The difference seemed small, and short of switching back and forth in near realtime, I couldn't tell which I prefer.

Hi Kef people. I am just a normal person (not an audiophile) and I got a set of Q150's (left and right) to try. I am also trying a set of Klipsch R-820F's (towers) and a Klipsch center and the Klipsch upfiring atmos. I have a a $50 pair of speakers for my rear/surrounds (since the sofa is next to the wall).

For the following tests, the upfiring atmos were all disabled.

I put the Q150's on and disabled the center and tried some music. It sounded REALLY nice and had a nice soundstage. My wife, daughter, and I tried a few songs and were impressed.

Then I tried a movie, with the Klipsch center still disabled (so it was a phantom center) and it just sounded OK. I was like ehhh.

I enabled the center and everything sounded a lot better everywhere, but it still missing the OOMPH from the Klipsch towers. I am guessing because they have a lot more bass to them and bigger speakers? I do not currently have a subwoofer either. I definitely feel I would need a subwoofer for the Q150's

Do you think with enabling the Klipsch center, that it overpowered everything; or did enabling it cause the Q150's to sound better because they did not have to worry about the dialogue in the speaker? Or would just having any center would make everything sound better?

We do probably 90% tv/movies and 10% music/spotify/youtube music streaming.

I did get everything on sale; The Q150 pair for $300 and the R820F's for 50% off (so $500 for the pair).

It is a 11 feet width, 15 feet long (sitting at around 13 feet), and 9 feet high. One side of the family room is open that has a hallway-type that connects the front of the house to the area to eat/kitchen.

Bookshelf speakers won't have the same "oomph" as towers.

I suspect it's more likely you have a problem with the setup you're using to deliver the signal to the speakers. A center speaker shouldn't effect the sound as you describe. I doubt you need a center speaker, and an 11' wide room doesn't allow much space between the front LR speakers once you set them away from the side walls. But given you seem to like the Klipsh stuff, why not go with that?

I know I'm a lone voice harping on about this, but a blind test does not tell you which is a better speaker. It's a nifty way of seeing if you can reliably differentiate between speakers, and if you can, which of those speakers you prefer.

But preferring one speaker over another does not make that speaker 'better'.

For example, the Zu Essence is, objectively, quite possibly the worst speaker ever designed.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/...r-measurements

Yet the subjective reviewer (and many others) think it is wonderful.

People forget a couple of things about the 'scientific' Harman methodology.

Firstly, that it is predicated on Trained listeners.

And secondly that it is not trying to choose the most objectively accurate speakers, but rather the most subjectively preferred speakers.

The Harman 'house curve' is liked by most, but is wilfully inaccurate.

All that said, I agree about doing a blind test. Objectively the Ref 1 is a better speaker than the LS50. But subjectively you may prefer the sound of the LS50 and thus can save thousands.

Objectively, the $1000 Neumann KH80 is better than either. Short of a Kii or D&D I've not seen a speaker that measures better.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...-8#post-258380

Would it be preferred in a blind test over the Ref 1 or LS50?

It might be. I didnt run a new audyssey yet either. I only have listened to a vizio sound bar and those klipsch. Trying different things out. Plus, my wife has to be appeased. I dont think she likes big towers.

The poster wanted to know how much better, if any the Ref 1 are to the LS50, so if he were to see which he "preferred" in a blind comparison, the winner would be the "better" speaker to him. Generally the objectively better speaker is preferred in blind tests, so they should conclude the same thing.

You need to read up a bit on the Harman research, first they use trained listeners because they get results faster but they come to the identical conclusions as untrained listeners, it's about efficiency.

Again, the subjectively preferred speaker is the same as the objectively accurate speaker most of the time, in their well controlled study with bookshelf speakers there was a .995 correlation with measurements and listening tests.

No it's not willfully innacurate, it's the naturally occurring room curve that neutral speakers exhibit, most KEFs follow a similar curve in-room.

I expect the Ref 1 to win as well.

The KH80 measures well on-axis but they have very limited directivity, so the early reflections curve would probably not be that great, which plays an important part in overall preference.