AVS Forum banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I don't have a lot of money and the only decent dpeakers I can buy near me are KEF or monitor audio. I would like to know which you guys think is better in the long run. Also which is the most important part of my HT to upgrade first. My centre, fronts, surrounds or sub?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,573 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanmcloughlin7 /forum/post/19673291


I don't have a lot of money and the only decent dpeakers I can buy near me are KEF or monitor audio. I would like to know which you guys think is better in the long run. Also which is the most important part of my HT to upgrade first. My centre, fronts, surrounds or sub?

This is purely subjective. Go audition them both. You could probably consider the type of audio you like and read reviews on other speakers and have them shipped. I am a huge KEF fan so my opinion is super biased. As far as upgrading first, I would say it depends on what you have. Typically the front 3 are done first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Right now I have an onkyo 5.1 set up. the receiver is a 7.1 and is very good. The speakers are just tiny. So i want to upgrade them at some stage to something more powerful
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,154 Posts
You can't go wrong with either brand, I don't think. I've owned full sets centered around iq9's, RS6's, RS8's, and RX8's.. and I would happily welcome any one of them back into my home.


The real veneer on the MA's was nicer, but build quality on both was superb and aside from a little lack of bottom end from the iq's, I really didn't have much of a complaint about any of them. And with a sub, that didn't matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,057 Posts
I would say take some music that you're very familiar with and listen to both brands of speakers. Bring home the winner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
KEF speakers are going to be less bright and glaring than the Monitor Audios. Monitors are built very well but can be harsh. I like smooth. I would prefer the KEF or PSB.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ich toxisch /forum/post/19740882


KEF speakers are going to be less bright and glaring than the Monitor Audios. Monitors are built very well but can be harsh. I like smooth. I would prefer the KEF or PSB.

I think to some they can come off harsh(Monitor Audio that is) but IMO it has to do alot in part to the SQ of what you are listening to. If the recording is bad it will sound bad on MA's. They are very transparent speakers ,so what goes in comes out.

I listen to a lot of Jazz at home,so to us at least they(Monitor Audio) sound outstanding!

When I listen to my 80's Rock,New Rock or Alternative music,it can be overwhelming(or harsh) at higher levels.

It all depends on your taste and what sounds good to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,007 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBrandon /forum/post/0



This is purely subjective. Go audition them both.

+1. I personally prefer MA, but your taste may differ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,226 Posts
For HT, Monitor Audio's centers are all (except the most expensive one) of the reviled toppled-MTM design. They will never be as smooth or accurate as KEF's centers.


A toppled-MTM will never be hi-fidelity, no matter what the brand or price. KEF's Uni-Q coincident driver is simply a better solution, especially if one is going to use a "dedicated" center rather than going the higher-fidelity route of using identical speakers at identical orientations/elevations across the front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Just wanted to add something that was not previously discussed, and that is KEF's amazing off-axis accuracy when watching movies. If your like myself, you don't always sit directly in front of the sound stage. I have a studio, and I'm either on one end of the sofa or the other, sometimes the bed.. and I've noticed how accurate the KEF's are no matter where your situated (there is obviously some disruption in accuracy, but far better than many others I have owned). You will especially notice this when listening to just the front left and right, you would swear the center channel is on.


Back to the topic - when trying to decide between the two (MA or KEF) which is where I was, I feel like the MA's get a lot more people swaying their way due to their sexiness.. I prefer the look of the MA's, however if your in it for the experience like you should be, simply close your eyes, and I think you will find that the KEF's sound more refined overall.. People are pointing to the 'brightness' of the MA's, and that this can go away with break-in.. however what does not go away is how they transfer any kind of distortion at the high end, any hissing, any background noise.. the KEF's do a far better job toning those frequencies out, where as they are evident on the MA's..

Ideally you want a clean source at all times, however this is not always possible especially with many underground electronic recordings etc. I chose the KEF's overall, and I now run the Q500's, Q200, Q100's with a Definitive Technology Sub on a Yamaha RX-V1800 and the sound is incredible.


The one thing the KEF q500's lack are the bottom end, and would recommend a subwoofer. Same go's for the MA's.. This is for those that listen to bassy music, and want that bottom end kick, especially for movies. If you don't want a sub, and want an 'all-in-one' type situation out of your speaker and listen to that type of music, you shouldn't be looking at either of these two names imo. A comparible speaker with more bass kick than either the KEF's or the MA's would be something like the Paradigm monitor's (comparatively) or a step up would be the Paradigm studio's. You will definitely hear the difference in bass output. However I feel like your sacrificing what the KEF's or MA's can do at the mid-top end, and so your better off with one of those two with a sub to make up for lack of bottom end.


Most people would try and supplement this by going from say a Q500 to the Q700, but I actually prefer the sound of the 500/100's over the 700/300's, and nothing can really replace what a subwoofer makes up for anyway. I did numerous auditions with the 500's/700's side by side, and while there are gains to stepping up, you definitely do losing something as well. I am no 'audiofile', so I don't know all the fancy lingo, but i'll try.. The 500's (5.25 mid size) are more 'tight' and 'accurate', and give you more detail. The 700's do 'open up' the sound due to the larger drivers, but they become less detailed, although they do give you a larger sound. This is especially evident when you listen to a live acoustic type recording. Then again, this is based on a smaller/mid type rooms size, I can see how if you have a larger room, that you may want the larger mid size for fill, but either way I would add a subwoofer overall, the 700's do add some 'kick' but not by much. Same go's for the MA's. Best thing to do is to A/B test them side by side on the same A/V receiver. Hope I helped a little and didn't confuse, it's my first post : P
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,014 Posts
+1 you can't really go wrong with either speaker.


+1 to the previous two posts - KEF probably has an advantage for HT. If you're considering a sub, then running three KEF Q100's or Q300's LCR across the front creates a very nice, wide and even front sound stage. (Both the Q100 and Q300 have a single concentric UniQ driver, so unlike most speakers you can lay them on their side as a center if you don't have room for an upright center speaker.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
Again this is subjective. What maybe good for others may not be true for you. Audition is the key. If possible, look for a shop that carries both brands, audition on the same room using the same avr/amp, speakers, so that all will be equal.


You may also end up like me. I auditionied MA, Mission, and B&W but ended up with Paradigm
forums will be your guide, but your ears will be the judge (and wallet
)
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top