KEF Q900 Towers

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Kal Rubinson wrote about the KEF Q900 he just reviewed in the September issue of Stereophile:

"There is no other speaker in that range (sub $2K) that I prefer to the KEF Q900."


John Atkinson wrote:

"Despite its affordable price, KEF's Q900 offers superb measured performance."

The review is not on the Stereophile website yet.


___________________________________________________________


This is confirming the outstanding performance of the KEF Q900 on Home Theater Magazine.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/kef-q900-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

"The Q900’s listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +2.25/–0.65 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz."

"The Q900s sounded uncolored, open, and detailed."


It seems like this is one of the best $2K range speaker systems out there.

 

[its phillip]

They look great to me and I'd love to check out a pair, but I can't afford em right now

 

[GranteedEV]

They also look ugggglyyyyy

 

[its phillip]

Ugly? Not at all. Looks like a nice box to me

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

They also look ugggglyyyyy

What?

I cannot believe you said that!

I think they look awesome.

And you think the Salk Soundscape looks great?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Ugly? Not at all. Looks like a nice box to me

Very nice, sharp, and clean looking.

 

[GranteedEV]

What?

I cannot believe you said that!

I think they look awesome.

They look like big... boxes. At the very least, I think some corner roundover or even bevel would do them a huge favor. I'm pretty sure it's the 90 degree corners that totally kill this speaker from my "want" list.

The XQ series KEF speakers, however, look awesome:

as do the KEF Reference 201/203/205 but not the 207

And you think the Salk Soundscape looks great?

I think if the midrange section had a bit of a curve as it shifted to the bass section, it would look great.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I don't know about the KEF XQ20, XQ30, or XQ40, but the KEF XQ10's measurements look kind of bad:

The XQ10’s listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +4.70/–1.72 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/kef-xq10-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures

However, speaker measurements alone don't tell you everything. Some speakers don't measure that great on-axis & off-axis, but they still sound awesome to some people. Like the B&W 800 Diamond- the on/off axis FR's didn't look great. I can tell John Atkinson favors speakers that measure superbly, but that didn't matter to Kal Rubinson. He totally loved the 800 D. He traded in his 3 802D for 3 of the 800 Diamond. So he loved the way the 800 D sound regardless of the FR measurements.

Another example is the Klipsch RF82 vs. Infinity Classia C336. Although the C336 measures a lot better than the Klipsch RF83, DenPureSound says that he thinks the RF82 sounds 100 times better than the C336 for stereo music listening (not for movies).

So the KEF XQ10 (and most likely the XQ40, XQ30) may sound awesome.

 

[its phillip]

Yes, they look like big boxes....attractive big boxes. Those other KEFs are also attractive, but I'm not a fan of the ports.

 

[DS-21]

Those look like the new reference at the price point.

I do think it's a shame about the cabinet, though. I wonder how much more expensive a lower-diffraction design would've been.

If they built a closed-box speaker with that Uni-Q and the helper woofer, I'd buy a trio in a heartbeat. (Or if updated their Ci line to with a 200Ci using this Uni-Q, then I'd build closed-box speakers with low diffraction cabinets around it.)

 

[its phillip]

EV, don't you like the F12s? They look pretty boxy to me

 

[GranteedEV]

I think they are uggglyyy too - I don't like the Revel F52 aesthetics either although i don`t doubt it sounds ridiculously good. I love the aesthetics of the Salon1 and Gem2/Studio2/Salon2 but mostly the black finishes.

In the sub $2000 price range, I do like the aesthetics of Focal, EMPTek, Magnepan, SVS MTS, Martin Logan, Axiom M60 w/ custom finish, and Usher S520+Bass stand.

 

[Sylar]

They also look ugggglyyyyy

I have to agree, i was put off by their looks when I had a demo. The B&W & PSB's looked way way better.

 

[Whitey80]

The previous model Q series looked far better.... very smoothly curved cabinet with satin wood finishes, and the torpedo dust caps.....makes me miss them very much, never should have sold them.

But the difference in cost of production has allowed them to do some cool things at the same price point this time around

 

[DS-21]

I've heard from some British friends that the new Q-Series' cabinet quality isn't the best, either. More like the old Qx5 line, and not like the curved-box ones. However, that seems like a blessing in disguise to me; there may be plenty of dinged-up but functionally fine ones out there, either B-stock or used, which means that people can buy them, harvest the drivers/crossover, and put them in better-made, lower-diffraction cabinetry.

 

[noobpower2]

from the front i actually think they are the most aesthetically pleasing second to bowers series. i can understand from 3 reasons why the cabinet is of relatively less quality: kef says they use recycled wood fiber to be "eco friendly"; the q series is very big for its price thus needing more fiber, especially the q900 where it seems to dwarf most comparable sub-2000 usd speakers; making a rectilinear cabinet which obviously by design needs more fiber. it seems to me they went a low-compromise approach to boaster their sound quality. after all, there are 4 200mm speakers and an 38mm tweeter. i guess this is where the xq series comes into play; slightly better sound quality and big jump in aesthetics at the cost of a big jump in cost.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The Q900 is retailed at $800 each. So dealer cost is probably $500 each, and actual cost can't be more than $300 each, perhaps not even more than $200 each.

So I don't think we can compare the cabinets of the Q900 to a more expensive speaker.

The important thing about a speaker is not the cabinet. I mean, of course, the cabinet cannot be lousy and cause adverse noise, etc. But overall, cabinet resonance is not the most important thing.

The most important thing about a speaker is the actual sound quality. This is determined by several things. But the 2 most important things are the Polar Response (off axis up to 60 degrees) and the Frequency Response (on-axis).

So sure, the Q900 may not have total lack of cabinet resonance.

But what it does have is superb speaker measurements, particularly the polar response and frequency response, as measured by both Home Theater Magazine and Stereophile. And superb speaker measurement is something that most speakers out there, regardless of price, cannot achieve!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

from the front i actually think they are the most aesthetically pleasing second to bowers series. i can understand from 3 reasons why the cabinet is of relatively less quality: kef says they use recycled wood fiber to be "eco friendly"; the q series is very big for its price thus needing more fiber, especially the q900 where it seems to dwarf most comparable sub-2000 usd speakers; making a rectilinear cabinet which obviously by design needs more fiber. it seems to me they went a low-compromise approach to boaster their sound quality. after all, there are 4 200mm speakers and an 38mm tweeter. i guess this is where the xq series comes into play; slightly better sound quality and big jump in aesthetics at the cost of a big jump in cost.

True. Excellent points.

But I would like to see the actual speaker measurements of the XQ series first before I agree that they have better sound quality than the Q900.

Afterall, the Q900 has superb speaker measurements on Stereophile and HTM. I have not even seen a real 3rd party measurement on the XQ30 & XQ40.

I've seen the HTM measurements of the XQ10, and it kind of sucked. So just because it has better cabinet & cost more does not mean too much in terms of speaker measurements.

The Q900 has better speaker measurements than the $25,000 B&W 800 Diamond, which has virtually no cabinet resonance.

Of course, I will not say the Q900 actually sounds better than the 800 D.

I would look like an idiot for saying that.

Personal sound quality is subjective and some speakers are voiced to sound a certain way, which will sound great to certain people.

But if the Q900 has a much better speaker measurement than the XQ30 or even XQ40, I would not hesitate to say that I think the Q900 has better sound quality than the XQ. Well, I might hesitate for 15 minutes.

 

[DS-21]

it seems to me they went a low-compromise approach to boaster their sound quality. after all, there are 4 200mm speakers and an 38mm tweeter. i guess this is where the xq series comes into play; slightly better sound quality and big jump in aesthetics at the cost of a big jump in cost.

Perhaps the next xQ-series, at least. IMO, the current Q's are better than the current xQ's. They're also a newer design. I would love to see a closed box xQ bookshelf with that 8" Uni-Q.

The Q900 reminds me of nothing so much as the old Tannoy Saturn S8. Basically, that speaker took Tannoy's best 8" drive units at the time (the 8" Dual Concentric used in their D500 home model and System 8 NFM II studio monitor) and put 'em in a cheap cabinet. Until the Q900 came about, the Tannoy Saturn series was the best sound for the buck that i'd seen.

So I don't think we can compare the cabinets of the Q900 to a more expensive speaker.

To be sure, I wasn't. I was merely reporting what some friends told me about them. (I think they've been out in the UK longer than here.)

The important thing about a speaker is not the cabinet. I mean, of course, the cabinet cannot be lousy and cause adverse noise, etc. But overall, cabinet resonance is not the most important thing.

Well...it's not a resonance issue.

There is one aspect of the cabinet design that is very sonically important, IMO: low diffraction. I've found that generally speaking a given drive-unit complement will sound better in a cabinet with gentle surface transitions and nothing sticking up on the baffle.

I know that compared to the stock Tannoy System 12 DMT II's, which have tiny roundovers, those lines cut in the front, ports on the baffle, and a logo standing proud on the baffle:

mine (same crossover and baffle dimensions, but cabinets designed to minimize diffraction, with very large roundovers and a continuous curve for the sides, and no ports)

image better and simply do not fatigue no matter how long the listening session is.

Admittedly, the typical room is set up in a high-diffraction manner (equipment racks between the loudspeakers, coffee tables between loudspeakers and listening position, etc.) that those diffraction errors will swamp the speakers' diffraction. (Try listening without the electronics stacked between the mains, and the coffee table pushed to the side. It's quite a revelatory experience.) But for those of us who set up our rooms for both aesthetics and high-fidelity audio, yeah, it matters.

 

[GranteedEV]

Here's a good analysis of the effect of diffraction off of sharp corners:

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=cabinets.html

Of course, the effect of larger roundovers like those proposed by DS-21, or round speakers like the (gulp) B&W 800 series, are even better.