KEF R11 vs. Q900 Blind test can’t tell difference! HELP

[seanhyatt]

Thank you everyone for your great input. I really appreciate it.

 

[ROOSKIE]

"4x monolith 10inch thx"

Those are great subs. Where are they located? Are you using them as 4 independent subs or are some(all) of them close enough together to be considered one or two units?

So if you did a blind test, did you disable EQ or used the Q900 setting for both?

About the subs: 10” is relatively small. I rather have R900s in front with 2x8” drivers (I will stop about this now) over a 10” sub. Consider getting something bigger also for your sub when you can afford it. I do like the concept of 4 subs.

1 monolith 10" THX sub is equal in output to about 4 of the 8" drivers in the R900 based on my quick estimates of usable excursion and SD in the KEF vs Monolith.
So 4 of them is equal to about 16 of the KEF 8" drivers and that is just talking maximum output not depth of response.

Subs vs R900 when properly set-up ---->there is no way your R900's are even close.

Not saying big subs don't do more but these are not meek 10" woofers if the OP has the 10" Monolith subs I am thinking he does.

The 2, 8's in your R900's are the rough equal of the 4, 6.5" in the R11 as well. They may dig deeper and they may not. output wise that is the math if everything else is generally similar.

So the dude has an extra 16 of your 8's in his room.
Just saying.

 

[exm]

"4x monolith 10inch thx"

Those are great subs. Where are they located? Are you using them as 4 independent subs or are some(all) of them close enough together to be considered one or two units?



1 monolith 10" THX sub is equal in output to about 4 of the 8" drivers in the R900 based on my quick estimates of usable excursion and SD in the KEF vs Monolith.
So 4 of them is equal to about 16 of the KEF 8" drivers and that is just talking maximum output not depth of response.

Subs vs R900 when properly set-up ---->there is no way your R900's are even close.

Not saying big subs don't do more but these are not meek 10" woofers if the OP has the 10" Monolith subs I am thinking he does.

The 2, 8's in your R900's are the rough equal of the 4, 6.5" in the R11 as well. They may dig deeper and they may not. output wise that is the math if everything else is generally similar.

So the dude has an extra 16 of your 8's in his room.
Just saying.

I'm pretty good in math, but I don't follow the logic that a single 10" driver equals four 8" drivers, sorry. And no, I don't have the R900 any longer (upgraded to Reference) - but I absolutely loved the R900s (I think they are the closest to the Reference 5s as you can get).

 

[seanhyatt]

"4x monolith 10inch thx"

Those are great subs. Where are they located? Are you using them as 4 independent subs or are some(all) of them close enough together to be considered one or two units?



1 monolith 10" THX sub is equal in output to about 4 of the 8" drivers in the R900 based on my quick estimates of usable excursion and SD in the KEF vs Monolith.
So 4 of them is equal to about 16 of the KEF 8" drivers and that is just talking maximum output not depth of response.

Subs vs R900 when properly set-up ---->there is no way your R900's are even close.

Not saying big subs don't do more but these are not meek 10" woofers if the OP has the 10" Monolith subs I am thinking he does.

The 2, 8's in your R900's are the rough equal of the 4, 6.5" in the R11 as well. They may dig deeper and they may not. output wise that is the math if everything else is generally similar.

So the dude has an extra 16 of your 8's in his room.
Just saying.

Each sub is in the 4 corners of the room. They are bundles 2x each. 2x front 2x back. Each set of two is equal distance from each other.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I'm pretty good in math, but I don't follow the logic that a single 10" driver equals four 8" drivers, sorry. And no, I don't have the R900 any longer (upgraded to Reference) - but I absolutely loved the R900s (I think they are the closest to the Reference 5s as you can get).

Each 10" almost the SD of 2, 8s.

Those have massive usefull excursion that I am sure is at least 2x that of the KEF r900 8's, so that is another 2x.(it could be 3x the excursion)so a total of almost 4, 8"KEFs will output/move the volume of air at maximum output of what 1 Monoprice Monolith 10" THX sub will. Generally speaking of course, actually might vary a little bit and cabinet size is a factor.

Not saying the R900 are not good or that someone shouldn't love 'em to be clear. Just pointing out that real subs can move a lot of air even when smallish.

 

[Svensson]

Can I ask, just for completeness, how much time have you put into driving the newer speakers and also, what items are in your chain?
I suspect all good, but just in case, brand new speakers (unlike electronics) can improve and change perrformance once the drivers have been vigorously oscillated.

 

[Triliza]

Can I ask, just for completeness, how much time have you put into driving the newer speakers and also, what items are in your chain?
I suspect all good, but just in case, brand new speakers (unlike electronics) can improve and change perrformance once the drivers have been vigorously oscillated.

I don't think that would change much. To avoid going off-topic, more info can be found below:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-audio-speakers-break-in.11898/

 

[seanhyatt]

I don't think that would change much. To avoid going off-topic, more info can be found below:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/do-audio-speakers-break-in.11898/

I did run them through a day of YouTube speaker break in videos. I did not notice any difference after unfortunately.

 

[mr.k]

I have a similar experience. For years now, I've been trying to find significantly better bookshelf speakers than the ones I currently have. I own very old B&W 686 speakers with a dented tweeter.

I have experimented with different speakers along the way, some of them being several times more expensive. My latest attempt was about a month ago when I tried the LS 50 Meta, which has received global acclaim.

Yes, they are undeniably striking and beautiful, but when it comes to sound quality, I simply couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Some might argue that I need better electronics, a better room, a better AB test, to listen at higher volumes, or even better ears. But for me... I'm just an average guy living in an average apartment, and I usually listen at average levels 98% of the time, although I have a genuine passion for music.

I firmly believe that if a speaker is truly better (for me!), I should be able to perceive the difference immediately, even without holding a degree in acoustics

 

[bodhi]

I have a similar experience. For years now, I've been trying to find significantly better bookshelf speakers than the ones I currently have. I own very old B&W 686 speakers with a dented tweeter.

I have experimented with different speakers along the way, some of them being several times more expensive. My latest attempt was about a month ago when I tried the LS 50 Meta, which has received global acclaim.

Yes, they are undeniably striking and beautiful, but when it comes to sound quality, I simply couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

Some might argue that I need better electronics, a better room, a better AB test, to listen at higher volumes, or even better ears. But for me... I'm just an average guy living in an average apartment, and I usually listen at average levels 98% of the time, although I have a genuine passion for music.

I firmly believe that if a speaker is truly better (for me!), I should be able to perceive the difference immediately, even without holding a degree in acoustics

If I'm not mistaken those B&Ws are far from neutral, having V-shaped frequency response. This is not because people at B&W can't create neutral speakers, it's because there is large customer base for that kind of sound. I think this has also been described as "showroom sound" because at first it sounds very impressive, even if you are used to neutral speakers, but after a while it starts to get on your nerves.

But if you are used to/like that kind of sound, then the usual neutral favorites from here are probably not your cup of tea. Still, I know from experience that you kind of grow into more neutral sound and after that has happened it can be hard to go back.

 

[mr.k]

If I'm not mistaken those B&Ws are far from neutral, having V-shaped frequency response. This is not because people at B&W can't create neutral speakers, it's because there is large customer base for that kind of sound. I think this has also been described as "showroom sound" because at first it sounds very impressive, even if you are used to neutral speakers, but after a while it starts to get on your nerves.

But if you are used to/like that kind of sound, then the usual neutral favorites from here are probably not your cup of tea. Still, I know from experience that you kind of grow into more neutral sound and after that has happened it can be hard to go back.

The problem was I didn't like my speaker more or less...the problem was I couldn't hear any noticable difference .

Which is good, because it saved me money. But also bad, because I really want new speakers

That lead me to suspicion that maybe speakers, just like DACs/amps, are "solved equation" if not forced into distortion...at least for average joes like me.

 

[MarcT]

The problem was I didn't like my speaker more or less...the problem was I couldn't hear any noticable difference .

Which is good, because it saved me money. But also bad, because I really want new speakers

That lead me to suspicion that maybe speakers, just like DACs/amps, are "solved equation" if not forced into distortion...at least for average joes like me.

I wouldn't say that, with respect to all speakers out there, as there are so many disparate designs and design goals. Now, within any particular brand's speakers, it may seem like a "solved equation" because they often seem to go for a "house sound" with their speakers, i.e., B&W. For example, I find it hard to see how you could compare a set of B&W to a set of KEF speakers and not be able to hear any noticeable difference. Their "house sound" is quite different.

 

[aarons915]

For the blind test I ran the :

1. R11 and Q900 speaker full range via pure direct with no EQ
2. R11 with its own Audyssey EQ file full range as well as the Q900 with its own Audyssey EQ file full range

I regretted I did not get the 12".

By the way I am extremely cheap and try to be as thrifty as possible. I basically do not buy anything unless it is on sale or proves to be an extreme value.

This is good but did you run them in stereo? I would always do blind comparisons in mono with a single speaker after my experience with both. I had 2 different speakers at a stalemate in stereo and when I compared mono the differences were very clear. I can't imagine you not hearing some kind of difference if you listen in mono because even though these are similar speakers, the Q900 have an 8" UniQ with a 1.5" tweeter compared to the R11 which uses the typical 5" UniQ with 1" tweeter, this means they are going to have different dispersion patterns. The Q are also a 2.5 way compared to the 3 way R11 which I think results in a different sound in coaxial speakers.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I mean
Cabinet quality plus driver/crossover should sound very different
In the end, we are trainning our ears for exaggerating the differences in SQ
Wanna something very different? Side-grade, most of audiophiles buy different brands/speakers in order to keep wow himself with side-grades


For example the r11 has similar dispersion, but something’s like a revel f208 should sound very different, wider and not precise imaging

In your case if you don’t appreciate the improvements, just return

In the end, kef could maked something very different and better, but the r11 meta its again kind of the same thing, but with a little wider soundstage and a much little better cabinet ( r11 vs r11 meta. Because the difference in cabinet quality between q900 vs r11 is bigger

 

[seanhyatt]

This is good but did you run them in stereo? I would always do blind comparisons in mono with a single speaker after my experience with both. I had 2 different speakers at a stalemate in stereo and when I compared mono the differences were very clear. I can't imagine you not hearing some kind of difference if you listen in mono because even though these are similar speakers, the Q900 have an 8" UniQ with a 1.5" tweeter compared to the R11 which uses the typical 5" UniQ with 1" tweeter, this means they are going to have different dispersion patterns. The Q are also a 2.5 way compared to the 3 way R11 which I think results in a different sound in coaxial speakers.

I will try them in mono as the next step and possibly final step.

Last night I did move the speakers around a bit and felt subjectively I got much more clarity out of the R11. Also did an Audyssey calibration (for convenience) and my conclusion was the R11 sounds terrible with Audyssey. The highs even when rolled off were screeching. The Q900 does ok with Audyssey. Audyssey has a problem with the higher bands and the R11 demonstrates that. Switched to pure direct.

I don't know if I can get my wife to administer another blind test. She is psychologist and one thing she does not like doing is testing!

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I will try them in mono as the next step and possibly final step.

Last night I did move the speakers around a bit and felt subjectively I got much more clarity out of the R11. Also did an Audyssey calibration (for convenience) and my conclusion was the R11 sounds terrible with Audyssey. The highs even when rolled off were screeching. The Q900 does ok with Audyssey. Audyssey has a problem with the higher bands and the R11 demonstrates that. Switched to pure direct.

I don't know if I can get my wife to administer another blind test. She is psychologist and one thing she does not like doing is testing!

If audyssey has problems with the r11, maybe try dirac? personally i EQ to my taste my R7, i exaggerate the top end in order to sound more crispy in the top end region (+3,5dB boost at 8khz-20khz), and i down a little bit the 3khz for make the sound more smooth in the vocals. But i use manual eq and auto EQ (rew) between 20hz and 700hz~

Anyway, using single speakers in the middle eliminate room problems, so its kind of listening the speakers but if you fixed a little bit the bass. just for testing worth it


Edit: Did you try to listening to them also without these '' room acoustic things '' ? they can make the sound more dead too

 

[BlackTalon]

screeching highs? Did you play with toe-in?

(I'm curious as I am eying a pair of these as well)

 

[seanhyatt]

If audyssey has problems with the r11, maybe try dirac? personally i EQ to my taste my R7, i exaggerate the top end in order to sound more crispy in the top end region (+3,5dB boost at 8khz-20khz), and i down a little bit the 3khz for make the sound more smooth in the vocals. But i use manual eq and auto EQ (rew) between 20hz and 700hz~

Anyway, using single speakers in the middle eliminate room problems, so its kind of listening the speakers but if you fixed a little bit the bass. just for testing worth it


Edit: Did you try to listening to them also without these '' room acoustic things '' ? they can make the sound more dead too

I prefer manual EQ. Audyssey is just faster when moving stuff around.

The Q900 responds well the the Acoustical panels and Audyssey but better with manual.

 

[seanhyatt]

screeching highs? Did you play with toe-in?

(I'm curious as I am eying a pair of these as well)

Screeching higher with Audyssey engaged. Yes, they were toed in to shoulders length.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I prefer manual EQ. Audyssey is just faster when moving stuff around.

The Q900 responds well the the Acoustical panels and Audyssey but better with manual.

and what about the acoustical panels with the r11?