Receiver or Separates for my speaker choices

[mtrycrafts]

According to KEF, the 201/2 has a freq resp of 55 Hz - 60 kHz +/- 3dB:

http://www.kef.com/products/reference06/GLOBAL/productRange_201_spec/default.aspx

But according to Soundstagenetwork.com, it's 70 Hz - 20 kHz +/-3dB. That's a pretty big difference, isn't it?

Again, we don't know how KEF rated their speakers, at what power level.
Soundstage shows you the overall signal input, I think it was at 1 watt. Plus, one may have been in an anechoic chamber in reality and the other an extrapolation? Who knows.
On the other hand though, a sub is needed for this speaker and its FR above 100Hz if tremendous.

 

[PENG]

no loss given that speaker load. Hook up a pair of low impedance speakers and rerun the test.

Like I said, seperates have their place depending on the environment and the load that is presented.

I am sure you are right and what you said can easily be supported by science. I also doubt anyone would disagree with you.

What is not supported by science is the claim (yes I read them before right on this forum) that more power will produce better sound even when it is not needed. No one actually put it in so many words but they often said something like "even at low volume.............the sound is so much clearer, I can hear.....all the details, ..........better mid bass....etc., etc.,.... Again, I am not quoting word for word but you get the idea.

Now, if one define low volume as something like 90+ dB from 15 ft away in a 3000 cu.ft. room then I would agree that power matters a lot. Other than that, if I have the extra cash I would definitely get one of those $4,500 20 WPC class A integrated amp for my smaller room and have no fear for any lack of mid bass or clarity due to the low power output.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

What is not supported by science is the claim (yes I read them before right on this forum) that more power will produce better sound even when it is not needed. No one actually put it in so many words but they often said something like "even at low volume.............the sound is so much clearer, I can hear.....all the details, ..........better mid bass....etc., etc.,.... Again, I am not quoting word for word but you get the idea.

Very well put. People like me who live in apartments, and therefore keep the volume low out of necessity, gain no audible benefit from having more than 20 watts or so per channel. For me, a more powerful amp would be a complete waste of money. (In fact, I currently have the least powerful Cambridge integrated, and I don't even come close to using its full capability.)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Again, we don't know how KEF rated their speakers, at what power level.
Soundstage shows you the overall signal input, I think it was at 1 watt. Plus, one may have been in an anechoic chamber in reality and the other an extrapolation? Who knows.
On the other hand though, a sub is needed for this speaker and its FR above 100Hz if tremendous.

True. It is extremely flat above 100Hz.

But what's with the 1-watt business I keep on seeing anyway? I see THD% measured @ 1-watt too. When do you use just 1-watt?

Hmmm. So I wonder what the F.R. of all the speakers out there look like @ 100 watts, instead of 1 watt?

I have to admit that I would also buy KEF instead of any online company. I can't prove that KEF will sound better than Aperion or any other company. But KEF is a proven name. And they also make those nice $20,000/pr speakers.

 

[wire]

When I went from a 150 watt Carver integrated to a 20 watt Onkyo "shelf system" reciever, there was almost no change in the sound at all. What little there was was actually an improvement resulting from the Onkyo having a somewhat lower noise floor.

What model Carver ? Did it have SH ? , i mightbe interested in buying it .

 

[gus6464]

True. It is extremely flat above 100Hz.

But what's with the 1-watt business I keep on seeing anyway? I see THD% measured @ 1-watt too. When do you use just 1-watt?

Hmmm. So I wonder what the F.R. of all the speakers out there look like @ 100 watts, instead of 1 watt?

I have to admit that I would also buy KEF instead of any online company. I can't prove that KEF will sound better than Aperion or any other company. But KEF is a proven name. And they also make those nice $20,000/pr speakers.

Don't they make that $150,000 pair with 2 separate towers for each speaker? I think they are called Muon? Or do they just have drivers in the back as well?

 

[Joe Schmoe]

What model Carver ? Did it have SH ? , i mightbe interested in buying it .

It was a CM-1090. It had the SH, but it was very noisy in operation. I gave it away months ago.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Don't they make that $150,000 pair with 2 separate towers for each speaker? I think they are called Muon? Or do they just have drivers in the back as well?

Wow, I was not aware of this:

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/kef_unveils_130k_ultra_modern_muon_speaker/C157

 

[3db]

I am sure you are right and what you said can easily be supported by science. I also doubt anyone would disagree with you.

What is not supported by science is the claim (yes I read them before right on this forum) that more power will produce better sound even when it is not needed. No one actually put it in so many words but they often said something like "even at low volume.............the sound is so much clearer, I can hear.....all the details, ..........better mid bass....etc., etc.,.... Again, I am not quoting word for word but you get the idea.

Now, if one define low volume as something like 90+ dB from 15 ft away in a 3000 cu.ft. room then I would agree that power matters a lot. Other than that, if I have the extra cash I would definitely get one of those $4,500 20 WPC class A integrated amp for my smaller room and have no fear for any lack of mid bass or clarity due to the low power output.

I agree with you on this. If you are in an environment that doesn't require the power draw..than its a waste of time from a power perspective and seperates should in fact sound no different than their receiver counter parts.

 

[PENG]

Don't they make that $150,000 pair with 2 separate towers for each speaker? I think they are called Muon? Or do they just have drivers in the back as well?

No, apparently the Muon is listed for only $130,000.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist.htm

 

[wire]

It was a CM-1090. It had the SH, but it was very noisy in operation. I gave it away months ago.

Damn
I like pre in that unit , what was noisy about , was it the when the SH was ingauged ? Or was it the Amp section that might have had a Buzz ? I know those units are getting up there in age , maybe close to 20 years now .

 

[no. 5]

Late to the party, but I saw KEF...

If this test on one of their other speaker is any indication of their quality, then the OP's Kef should be pretty good too, but who knows. Too bad there is no similar test on it:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/kef_201-2/

Stereophile measured the iQ9. That's a bit closer to the iQ7.

 

[WmAx]

Stereophile measured the iQ9. That's a bit closer to the iQ7.

If the iQ7 is anything like the iQ9, it's junk. The only good thing in those measurements is the relatively flat response in the mid to treble, on axis, and the good sensitivity. Off axis is a disaster; I don't when I have last seen a modern speaker have such poor off axis response. Substantial room treatments are not even an option here: they are required to kill the horrible off axis response characteristics before they contaminate the entire room ambiance sound field. Cabinet is extremely resonant, as is to be expected.

-Chris

 

[no. 5]

If the iQ7 is anything like the iQ9, it's junk.

As far as I know, the only difference between the two is the number of woofers.

 

[thedude65]

question about Emotiva

Not hardly true. I don't listen to my system all that loud, as I live in a condo, and my room is fairly small. I went from using my 661 to power my speakers, to using a separate amp and there was a very noticeable difference. My system sounds cleaner, with better mid-bass response now.

hello, darien87. did you notice an improvement in sound quality even at low volume with the LPA-1 as compared to the yam661's amps? i'd appreciate your opinion because i'm thinking of getting the UPA-7(LPA-1 followup) to use with the yam863. thanks.