Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions.
Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Haha. Yeah I know... I love what subwoofers do to the room acoustics and how they fill in the lower octave that I personally believe all speakers are missing
Everyone I know, have all sorts of speaker, from JM-lab, Magico, Dali, Snell + every imaginable cheap to crazy expensive gear in front... you name it. They all have greatly benefitted from adding 2-4 subwoofers, to tame the room and ad depth. But each to their own
No, no. In my comment both are KEF. And both are 3 way. And both have the UniQ and so on. It's just that when you further advance the entire range, what happens is that lower tier speakers sometimes catch up with the upper tier speakers from yesteryears.
This is my guess why this particular comparison is hardly anywhere to be found.
Ah.. I see. Of course, they let yesterday top-gear sizzle down on the cheaper models as we move forward. This is also a very common thing to do. My old Dali speaker also "bragged" about using the same midrange from a more expensive range. Come to think of it.... everyone does this.
The KEF Reference, shift up a notch, by going full neo on the magnet system for both midrange and tweeter - leaving much more air/room behind the coax.
Maybe it is not doing much - that we can actually hear - but it is definitely a better construction/design, rather than having a huge ferro magnet just behind the tiny air-gaps of a very "crowded" design where there is just about room for it to breath. https://assets.kef.com/pdf_doc/REF/REF-White-Paper-201219-LR.pdf
I also had asked myself the same exact questions and even made an EQ for flat LW based on the KEF paper data but didn't like it on my Q7. Guess the truth is somewhere in between that we hear both direct sound and reflected sound power (of course which one more depending on the listening distance, directivity and reverberation) so a good compromise of both might be the way to go.
If I had to guess I would say the reference measurements are what we should shoot for, ie a slight drop of 2db or so from 100-20k in the listening window, have you tried duplicating that response and seeing if it fares better?
If I had to guess I would say the reference measurements are what we should shoot for, ie a slight drop of 2db or so from 100-20k in the listening window, have you tried duplicating that response and seeing if it fares better?
Listening window is an average of anechoic responses for non large angles and not the same or thus comparable to listening position response either predicted or measured so it doesn't make sense to tune the PIR according to it, unless in nearfield.
Nowdays with a 3e A7 ampli (380€, Amir is testing it) and a wiim pro plus streamer (250€) you have big power and sota performance. Add a Q7 meta (which has roughly the same bass extension of Q11, check spinorama.org) and you are done with just 2k€, and without the compression limits of LS60. At the moment there is no tower speaker that comes close to this level of performance for the price.
Then of course a sub is always welcome (the wiim ultra has a good sub out in such case).
Erin said he tried to lift up the highs with the Q11 but then went back to no eq. I think once you try and retry some room modes corrections you can compensate the slight emphasis on the base.
Listening window is an average of anechoic responses for non large angles and not the same or thus comparable to listening position response either predicted or measured so it doesn't make sense to tune the PIR according to it, unless in nearfield.
I was responding to your post about making a flat LW based on KEF's measurements that you said was a bit bright. Since the reference are what most people consider KEF's best sounding speakers, you don't think it makes sense to mimic their listening window response? I know where the LW comes from but with the smooth directivity of the Q meta, that means the ER and thus the PIR will be smooth as well.
I was responding to your post about making a flat LW based on KEF's measurements that you said was a bit bright. Since the reference are what most people consider KEF's best sounding speakers, you don't think it makes sense to mimic their listening window response? I know where the LW comes from but with the smooth directivity of the Q meta, that means the ER and thus the PIR will be smooth as well.
But their LW has already the shape they want it to have, even partially deviating from a straight tilted line to compensate some directivity issues. In the end what works for me best for now is following the slope of the LP response and use it to mainly correct deviations below 500 Hz.
don't you think they can bring more problems than benefits? How do you establish the position of the subwoofer in relation to the speaker? The phase and the crossover point? I think the subwoofer is a great option for very economical solutions or for those who are good at self-construction and design. Otherwise, for me, a good speaker that goes down to 30hz, as the kef Q11 meta shows it can do well and without too much distortion, is the best choice
don't you think they can bring more problems than benefits? How do you establish the position of the subwoofer in relation to the speaker? The phase and the crossover point? I think the subwoofer is a great option for very economical solutions or for those who are good at self-construction and design. Otherwise, for me, a good speaker that goes down to 30hz, as the kef Q11 meta shows it can do well and without too much distortion, is the best choice
Yeah, at my age, I'm not sure I want to take the time to catch up with, and spend time on, figuring out all this room correction stuff. Better to get a speaker that can work pretty well in the average domestic listening space. Based on my reading here on budget and mid-price speakers, it seems KEF may have about the best handle on that.
don't you think they can bring more problems than benefits? How do you establish the position of the subwoofer in relation to the speaker? The phase and the crossover point? I think the subwoofer is a great option for very economical solutions or for those who are good at self-construction and design. Otherwise, for me, a good speaker that goes down to 30hz, as the kef Q11 meta shows it can do well and without too much distortion, is the best choice
Well... if you really don't know what you are doing, and are not willing to read, experiment and learn even the basics - then yes.
And it is fine... not everyone wish to spend the same amount of time on the same details of this hobby. But bass is 1/3 of everything we value the most in sound reproduction.... so I think it is quite important.
Just try and take those nice measurements, and then redo them in a normal room. Everything below around 2-300Hz - suddenly needs serious care - if you want to enjoy the full qualities of that speaker. Just read up on the masking effect. You'd be surprised how much clearer the midrange/tweeter becomes, when the bass is not "smothering" the total sound.
The idea of multiple subwoofers is "just" a matter of using extra or several extra bass sources, to counter the inevitable problems all speakers have in almost all rooms. Especially when you include your listening position and room acoustics.
Using full range mains doesn't obviate the need for room correction. In fact, if anything it makes it more imperative than with a separate subwoofer since you have no ability to reposition the speaker and/or integrate multiple subs to better mitigate room modes.
Using full range mains doesn't obviate the need for room correction. In fact, if anything it makes it more imperative than with a separate subwoofer since you have no ability to reposition the speaker and/or integrate multiple subs to better mitigate room modes.
Look at the radiation pattern. Polk has way more energy in the upper frequencies, whereas KEF rolls off smoothly. Polk simply do not have the same controlled dispersion up top. Which is what some like. But you could angle the KEF towards you and EQ them a bit - which is way easier, since the KEF is already much smoother in its FR and PR.
my personal opinion: it is much simpler to measure and calibrate full-range speakers than to choose the position, crossover point and phase of subwoofers.
These speakers look really good. Make me question ordering the Mofi 888 this weekend - even a demo set with 10% off coupon is still almost twice the price of these.
These speakers look really good. Make me question ordering the Mofi 888 this weekend - even a demo set with 10% off coupon is still almost twice the price of these.
It's depends on your preferences. Visually and sonically.
The MoFi SourcePoint 888 definitely has the better build quality and fit and finish, but the KEF Q11 Meta looks more modern with no visible mounting screws.
Sonically the KEF's will sound a bit darker looking at Erin's estimated in-room response of both, but the MoFi's have the edge when it comes to deep bass.
Gotcha. I hope the Mofis sound great and look good enough for the wife to be fine with them. I like the classic look with the off-white grill if I keep that on. Guess I'll find out when they arrive tomorrow.
