KEF Q100 Speaker Review

[Crazy_Nate]

I noticed quite a bit of improvement when I went from a cheap home theater receiver to a powerful stereo amplifier (100W at 8 ohms / 190W at 4 ohms) with my LS50. Definitely improved my impression of the speakers. I still think they're not a good match for a large room, and I have my sitting position off axis relative to the speakers to drop the treble a little bit.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I think a lot, too, has to do with expectation bias because of the coaxial design. When offering testimonials to people seeking recommendations, I have seen many people on forums lead with how great they (and the Q150s) are because of the technology.

Be interesting to see how the Q150s measure.

For most people buying at this price these speakers are the best they have owned - and in many cases the only real speaker they have owned. Many are coming from logitec and sony and Dad's old cerwin vega's ect.
I did not like the Q100 but could see a newbie being very enthused/inspired and writing a review. Newbie's love being exposed to the marketing of decent tech as well (don't we all??)
Wirecutter also picked this pair (and the Q150) over all the speakers in the "budget" comparison. This was a blind test panel and for these listeners, the Q speaker was decent.

 

[Sancus]

Wirecutter also picked this pair (and the Q150) over all the speakers in the "budget" comparison. This was a blind test panel and for these listeners, the Q speaker was decent.

They also picked the oft-mocked Pioneer SP-BS22-LR for their "budget pick".

 

[Blumlein 88]

By the way, I made a new absorber for the microphone cage/fixture which seems to have been quite effective in getting rid of comb filtering above 10 kHz.

Seems like you should patent it, and trade the design to Klippel in exchange for some of their other expensive software.

 

[JohnBooty]

I think a lot, too, has to do with expectation bias because of the coaxial design. When offering testimonials to people seeking recommendations, I have seen many people on forums lead with how great they (and the Q150s) are because of the technology.

A pretty legitimate claim in this price range during the years this speaker was sold, in my opinion.

The Q100 commonly sold for $300/pair street price. I'm not aware of anything passive in that price range that had such constant off-axis performance (which we know is very important) and that is most definitely due to the coaxial design.

The Q100 definitely had shortcomings (which of course have been mentioned extensively already in this thread) but for a few years there, this was a very solid pick in this price range.

 

[bobbooo]

For most people buying at this price these speakers are the best they have owned - and in many cases the only real speaker they have owned. Many are coming from logitec and sony and Dad's old cerwin vega's ect.
I did not like the Q100 but could see a newbie being very enthused/inspired and writing a review. Newbie's love being exposed to the marketing of decent tech as well (don't we all??)
Wirecutter also picked this pair (and the Q150) over all the speakers in the "budget" comparison. This was a blind test panel and for these listeners, the Q speaker was decent.

Taking into account sound quality, value for money and build quality, Wirecutter actually chose the Q Acoustics 3020i and 3020 last year as their picks for the "best bookshelf speakers for most stereos", as they are nicely efficient and "sound better and are built more sturdily than anything else in their price range."

They also picked the oft-mocked Pioneer SP-BS22-LR for their "budget pick".

Looks like the preference scores are on the right track then with the Pioneer's high rating corresponding to high placement in an actual blind listening test with other bookshelf speakers. Wirecutter said their blind tests rated the Q Acoustics 3020 higher still in sound quality, which could give them a rating above the Pioneer (7.4 with an ideal subwoofer) if @amirm measures them, so they may turn out to be an excellent buy at $229 a pair.

 

[Sancus]

Looks like the preference scores are on the right track then with the Pioneer's high rating corresponding to high placement in an actual blind listening test with other bookshelf speakers. Wirecutter said their blind tests rated the Q Acoustics 3020 higher still in sound quality, which could give them a rating above the Pioneer (7.4 with an ideal subwoofer) if @amirm measures them, so they may turn out to be an excellent buy at $229 a pair.

Well, they didn't use a sub according to the details of their comparison, so even if valid, it's unlikely their blind testing matches well to the no-LFE scores. Indeed, this Q100 beats the Pioneer on the regular score, so I would expect the Q150 to do so as well.

 

[confucius_zero]

Experience was not that positive.

yet scores high on "preference" score. I'm totally lost in that now...

 

[bobbooo]

Well, they didn't use a sub according to the details of their comparison, so even if valid, it's unlikely their blind testing matches well to the no-LFE scores. Indeed, this Q100 beats the Pioneer on the regular score, so I would expect the Q150 to do so as well.

I was talking more about relative rankings among bookshelf speakers, which are and I'd imagine will continue to be mostly the same with and without a sub. Anyway, the Pioneer is still in the second tier from top so far in the 'without sub' ranking, with a score of 4.84, which is very close to the Q100's 4.97, so my points about the Pioneer's good score matching Wirecutter's blind test results and the Q Acoustics 3020 likely having a higher preference rating due to its higher placement than the Pioneer in those blind tests stands. Of course, the only way to know the latter for sure would be to measure the 3020. (I didn't say anything about the KEF Q150 by the way.)

 

[Shazb0t]

You guys are focusing too much on the "preference" scores.

 

[Haint]

Useless, anecdotal, subjective, sighted, stereo impressions to follow, but FWIW I used Q150's in my living room for several months and thought they were pretty good for the $299/pr sale price, but was never especially bowled over by them. One bored afternoon I unhooked the surround backs (M16's) from my media room and brought them down to the living room just messing around. I preferred the M16's to such a degree I put the Q150's on CL that night and ordered another pair of M16's the next day. I'm assuming the bass hump is what mostly drove the preference, but my impression at the time was that the KEF sounded muddy, hollow, and less detailed by comparison (meaningless poetic descriptors I know). Not really sure what FR anomalies may point to that.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Hope you are doing well, Amir, in what has to be ground zero in North America. I suggest you submerge the entire house in hand sanitizer.

 

[Blumlein 88]

On preference score. Here are my concerns:

1. They were based on correlation of Harman anechoic measurements than Klippel NFS. In general, we are finding that my measurements show more variations than Harman's. Which one is the truth is not clear or material here. What is material is that the correlation coefficients may have been different if Sean Olive and crew had used my data, rather than their own.

2. There is ambiguity in the specification in computation of some of the graphs. We have clarified them but still need to implement them in my Klippel software and measure the impact.

3. I measured two samples of JBL 705P. One got a score of 4.5 and another 4.1. This is quite a large variation in the context of these numbers where we often have to rely on decimal place to score.

Personally, I am going simply by how flat the frequency response is, directivity issues, and smoothness of predicted-in-room response. Hopefully can build up more confidence in the scoring that we are computing (as opposed to original research which I do consider to be of high quality).

@amirm Excuse me for being lazy, but I'll just ask. Have you measured the same speaker twice to see if the results are super close. I recall you measuring with different numbers of measurement points and it indicated no real issues in this regard. Measuring even in room with REW, I find if you position things exactly the result is the same done a few minutes apart. I'd think your Klippel system is far better than this.

Just occurred to me in your comment about the 4.5 vs 4.1 on the 705P, could you get that kind of variance if you measured the same speaker twice.

 

[Doodski]

Oops posted stuff in the wrong thread

 

[amirm]

@amirm Excuse me for being lazy, but I'll just ask. Have you measured the same speaker twice to see if the results are super close.

Yes, that was the break-in thread. Despite using different number of points, the results were essentially identical.

 

[amirm]

Just occurred to me in your comment about the 4.5 vs 4.1 on the 705P, could you get that kind of variance if you measured the same speaker twice.

I don't think so but it is not something we have measured.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Yes, that was the break-in thread. Despite using different number of points, the results were essentially identical.

OK, thanks just wanted to make sure. One more variable to mark off the list.

 

[Blumlein 88]

There's a fellow on a couple of the hifi fora that does semi-serious amateur audio recording of live music. In the context of this 'imaging' sub-discussion, some of y'all might find his recordings, and approach, interesting. I've tried to be very circumspect in cross-citing forums here, but I'll share a sample link to this thread, strictly FYI and FWIW. No warranty express(ed) or implied.

https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threadshttps://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-virus-in-china-2019-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov.11102/page-54#post-348597/poway-symphony-2019-05-19-beethoven-beethoven.4910/
https://archive.org/details/pso2019-05-19.matrix.2448

I wonder with his microphones so far away. I suppose under the circumstances he was recording the way he could get away with. If given a choice I might have put his omnis on the stage lip, and put an NOS pair in the middle on the stage lip. He likely didn't have that option. The recording does sound honest and ungimmicked which is a big plus.

 

[amirm]

yet scores high on "preference" score. I'm totally lost in that now...

Finished testing the R3. I may be getting closer to correlating my listening results with measurements. As to scores, I already mentioned some of my uneasiness about them in an earlier post.

 

[Sancus]

Finished testing the R3. I may be getting closer to correlating my listening results with measurements. As to scores, I already mentioned some of my uneasiness about them in an earlier post.

Impressive scores on the R3, I see

Most people discuss the scores-with-subwoofer, but none of your listening tests have been that way...