KEF Q350 Speaker Review

[amirm]

That can hardly be called blind.

Well, I can have a sandwich with it if that makes you feel better.

 

[QMuse]

Well, I can have a sandwich with it if that makes you feel better.

If you have been hungry while evaluating this speaker that would certainly explain some of the discrepancy, so yeah, you better always have a sandwich and a glass of beer before listening.

On a more serious note, I have a feeling something essential is missing in the preference scoring system.

 

[thewas]

On a more serious note, I have a feeling something essential is missing in the preference scoring system.

While I also think and have written several times in the past that the current scoring system has still by far not reached perfection yet (which is ok, as it was the first attempt), I strongly doubt that the quick sighted listening tests of Amir should be a basis for that doubt.

 

[QMuse]

While I also think and have written several times in the past that the current scoring system has still by far not reached perfection yet (which is ok, as it was the first attempt), I strongly doubt that the quick sighted listening tests of Amir should be a basis for that doubt.

No, it can't, no matter if he has a sandwich before listening or not.

What I'm thinking is that horizontal directivity may play much more important role in our perception of SQ and it is not taken into account. It seems wider dispersion speakers are more often preffered in which cases even some non-smoothnes can be forgiven.

 

[thewas]

Indirectly both horizontal and vertical directivity are taken into account in the calculation of the score, but I agree possibly not differentiated enough. Also the findings about wide vs. more narrow preference seem to be contradictory and what I would like also to see in the future is is for example if the darker perceived tonality of more narrow directivity plays also a role there and what happens with the preference if both are EQed to a similar perceived tonality.
Only thing for sure is that alot more fundamental scientific research must be done in that field, but I have a feeling that the research done by Harman is getting less in the last years, maybe also due to the acquisition by Samsung? On the other hand they seem to be only ones? doing research in that important direction which I really find weird, as everybody designs his own loudspeakers to some self predefined targets which aren't really the result of scientific preference research though and research in that direction might give them a larger competitive advantage instead of just changing "randomly" targets with each loudspeaker generation.

 

[tecnogadget]

We had them in the same setup. The blades did not reach Salon 2's performance. They sounded dull from what I recall. They were very nice looking though!

Could it be mostly because of extended and beefier Low frequency from the Salons 2's?

Blade's make sense in a corporate/office environment as they are highly aesthetic and visual, but it would have been much better if you had Salon 2's and Reference 5's at that time for comparison purposes

 

[Soniclife]

On a more serious note, I have a feeling something essential is missing in the preference scoring system.

I'd like to see some blind testing, with standardised music tracks first, to see if feelings and facts are connected. The forum needs to step up and do this sort of thing, when the world is back to normal.

 

[QMuse]

Indirectly both horizontal and vertical directivity are taken into account in the calculation of the score, but I agree possibly not differentiated enough. Also the findings about wide vs. more narrow preference seem to be contradictory and what I would like also to see in the future is is for example if the darker perceived tonality of more narrow directivity plays also a role there and what happens with the preference if both are EQed to a similar perceived tonality.

I think that even when you EQ ER/PIR of two different speakers to the same target curve wider would still sound better, not because of tonality differences but because of wider soundstage/"spaciousness". But it is certainly an experiment worth to try!

Only thing for sure is that alot more fundamental scientific research must be done in that field, but I have a feeling that the research done by Harman is getting less in the last years, maybe also due to the acquisition by Samsung? On the other hand they seem to be only ones? doing research in that important direction which I really find weird, as everybody designs his own loudspeakers to some self predefined targets which aren't really the result of scientific preference research though and research in that direction might give them a larger competitive advantage instead of just changing "randomly" targets with each loudspeaker generation.

I'm not very optimistic about the future in that regard.

 

[QMuse]

I'd like to see some blind testing, with standardised music tracks first, to see if feelings and facts are connected. The forum needs to step up and do this sort of thing, when the world is back to normal.

I agree, blind tests are the way to go. And with room modes EQ-ed.

 

[Koeitje]

Indirectly both horizontal and vertical directivity are taken into account in the calculation of the score, but I agree possibly not differentiated enough. Also the findings about wide vs. more narrow preference seem to be contradictory and what I would like also to see in the future is is for example if the darker perceived tonality of more narrow directivity plays also a role there and what happens with the preference if both are EQed to a similar perceived tonality.
Only thing for sure is that alot more fundamental scientific research must be done in that field, but I have a feeling that the research done by Harman is getting less in the last years, maybe also due to the acquisition by Samsung? On the other hand they seem to be only ones? doing research in that important direction which I really find weird, as everybody designs his own loudspeakers to some self predefined targets which aren't really the result of scientific preference research though and research in that direction might give them a larger competitive advantage instead of just changing "randomly" targets with each loudspeaker generation.

Harman has been focusing more on headphones, which makes sense in the current market and the existing body of knowledge.

 

[edechamps]

I have added the KEF Q350 to Loudspeaker Explorer where it can be compared to other speakers.

Excellent consistency within the listening window:

 

[maty]

I think that the woofer needs a more complex filter with a steeper slope. All Q series.

 

[jazzendapus]

"...So, reasonably good objective measurements but doesn't do it for me.."

Oh,oh

Yeah...To deal with this issue I suggest keeping the pink panther as a rough summation of objective measurements, and adding to that a selfie of Amir listening to the speaker in question (with the appropriate facial expression) as an indication of subjective impression.

 

[Soniclife]

I agree, blind tests are the way to go. And with room modes EQ-ed.

With and without simple EQ needs to be part of the tests. I'd really like to know what simple anechoic derived fixes applied to well controlled but not flat speakers does for them, as well as room mode fixes.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Indirectly both horizontal and vertical directivity are taken into account in the calculation of the score, but I agree possibly not differentiated enough. Also the findings about wide vs. more narrow preference seem to be contradictory and what I would like also to see in the future is is for example if the darker perceived tonality of more narrow directivity plays also a role there and what happens with the preference if both are EQed to a similar perceived tonality.
Only thing for sure is that alot more fundamental scientific research must be done in that field, but I have a feeling that the research done by Harman is getting less in the last years, maybe also due to the acquisition by Samsung? On the other hand they seem to be only ones? doing research in that important direction which I really find weird, as everybody designs his own loudspeakers to some self predefined targets which aren't really the result of scientific preference research though and research in that direction might give them a larger competitive advantage instead of just changing "randomly" targets with each loudspeaker generation.

I know of people doing research and logical technical progress.
They do not publish it (yet) since they are not a public funded body like the BBC, not a retired expert like Dr Toole.
I am sure Harman are doing loads, though it seems a lot of effort is going into sound bars since the market is a gazillion times bigger and getting the technology convincing very much more complex than stereo speakers.

 

[tomtoo]

Yeah...To deal with this issue I suggest keeping the pink panther as a rough summation of objective measurements, and adding to that a selfie of Amir listening to the speaker in question (with the appropriate facial expression) as an indication of subjective impression.

HeHe poor @Amir. For me it's absolutly ok like it is. Measurements and his personal impression gives the panther. Let the panther be a subjektivist. Speakers give complex impressions. Just looking on meassurements? Nah....

 

[Frank Dernie]

HeHe poor @Amir. For me it's absolutly ok like it is. Measurements and his personal impression gives the panther. Let the panther be a subjektivist. Speakers give complex impressions. Just looking on meassurements? Nah....

Actually my experience is that people like what they are used to in speakers, that is why some believe in break in, it isn't the speakers breaking in but them becoming accustomed to the difference.
I would not expect Amir to immediately like something different to what he is used to any more than anybody else would and given expectation bias, which we all have, the subjective result is unsurprising.
I think the measurements are fantastic.
I think the subjective opinion is more or less what one would expect and of no value to me personally whatsoever, so I take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[tomtoo]

Actually my experience is that people like what they are used to in speakers, that is why some believe in break in, it isn't the speakers breaking in but them becoming accustomed to the difference.
I would not expect Amir to immediately like something different to what he is used to any more than anybody else would and given expectation bias, which we all have, the subjective result is unsurprising.
I think the measurements are fantastic.
I think the subjective opinion is more or less what one would expect and of no value to me personally whatsoever, so I take it with a pinch of salt.

Like others already told, if this goes on. We know @Armirs taste better than heself. I think its importend to have that personal impressions. This thread i realy enjoy. It would be boring and somehow strange if @Amirs taste would always correlate with the meassurements. So its much more interresting to speculate how it comes? Maybe it's the monolistening? Maybe it's the room? Questions over questions ; )

 

[Soniclife]

Maybe @Soniclife ’s point about room gain has some merit, for some rooms, I dunno.

Given who had just liked that post of mine I'm guessing room gain compensation is what the plan is with that bottom end response. Obviously room gain is variable, but designing speakers to work in real rooms, and offering some port stuffing options so owners can dial things in by placement and port stuffing seems sensible. I would expect most owners of these speakers to have them somewhat close to the wall.

 

[mhardy6647]

I think at this rate, in a few months, I will be the most studied audio listener in the world!

Seriously, there is not any listener out there become compared to such specific objective measurements. I think the guesses so far are pretty close to mine.

I am starting to think that the range up to 1 to 3 kHz is far more important than the rest. It is incredible how much difference it makes to pull a small peak down a few dB. And directivity definitely plays a part which until this review, I had not realized as much.

Of course, subjective listening tests are error prone but maybe with enough data points, some of that can be averaged out.

Longer term, I am keeping a collection of the budget speakers which I hope can be blind tested with our audiophile society here.

Don't forget that (human) evolution has selected for acuity in the midrange -- to wit, in the range of frequencies spanned by the human voice.
OK, probably the noises our predators made make, too!

The correlation of the objective & the subjective for loudspeakers is, IMO, the single biggest "value add" of this site/@amirm taking on loudspeaker assessments.

Are you claiming a lack of Harmany?

Oh the Harmanity.