KEF Ci200RR-THX In-ceiling/In-Wall Speaker Review

[-Dave]

"Speaker was measured using a special mode of Klippel Near-field Scanner where you mount the speaker to a baffle and through clever signal processing, the sound from backside and edges of the baffle are filtered out. Result is anechoic response of the speaker."

Would this technique be appropriate or alter the results of your infamous Magnepan test?

 

[Dj7675]

Decidedly not. I don't see these formats used in private facilities for any reasonable purpose.

It's more or less an elder Q model with a trim ring plus some additional optimizations. If you say the price reflects the niche use in very small numbers, I won't refuse to agree.

Then the product is definitely not for you then. Multichannel music, upmixed music, Atmos encoded music, and Atmos/DTS:X encoded movies I find exponentially more important/enjoyable than 2 channel these days. As such, having solutions like these for options are great. If possible, it is always best IMO to use ceiling mounted bookshelf speakers but sometimes ceiling height makes that not an option (such as my case).

 

[ChrisHeinonen]

I ran these as surround and Atmos channels in my theater at my last house (with 5160 fronts and a 3160 center) and they were wonderful. I have zero experience with other in-walls but for building out Atmos in a small 11x13’ room for reviewing it was great.

 

[amirm]

"Speaker was measured using a special mode of Klippel Near-field Scanner where you mount the speaker to a baffle and through clever signal processing, the sound from backside and edges of the baffle are filtered out. Result is anechoic response of the speaker."

Would this technique be appropriate or alter the results of your infamous Magnepan test?

No. This method is only for measuring drivers/speaker in a baffle.

Magnepan is a traditional speaker, albeit with radiation from the back in addition to front. That creates a complex soundfield which just takes more points to achieve high accuracy at higher frequencies. I didn't go there since my subjective testing of the LRS showed that the measurements were correct and quite useful as is.

 

[Jerry Sobel]

I just had 4 of these installed in my ceiling for front and back Atmos speakers and I have been very happy with them. I am super glad that Amir has recommended them

 

[sjlee001]

Thanks for the measurements, very helpful! I bought a pair to turn into 3-way speaker, removing the crossover and using the woofer as a midrange.

 

[Descartes]

I ran these as surround and Atmos channels in my theater at my last house (with 5160 fronts and a 3160 center) and they were wonderful. I have zero experience with other in-walls but for building out Atmos in a small 11x13’ room for reviewing it was great.

This is what I have been thinking about!

 

[lewdish]

Goes to show that at a certain lvl of THX rating product really do measure well. THX Select onwards speakers seem to actually measure better than conventional speakers. Its a common saying that the THX rating means nothing, but there are certain level of THX standards products that actually have good metrics to back the certification both in response and distortion usually.

 

[jimk1963]

Then the product is definitely not for you then. Multichannel music, upmixed music, Atmos encoded music, and Atmos/DTS:X encoded movies I find exponentially more important/enjoyable than 2 channel these days. As such, having solutions like these for options are great. If possible, it is always best IMO to use ceiling mounted bookshelf speakers but sometimes ceiling height makes that not an option (such as my case).

Agree, love the immersive formats and even enjoy just basic multichannel (“all channel”) music. Brings life to many of the old rock classics, fun. Family room has open plan to one side (kitchen), so am stuck with in-ceilings for surrounds, and also using in-ceilings for front heights. Room is 13x14 feet so need speakers with broad dispersion. Picked up a pair of these Ci-200RR’s, two more coming in Friday. Expecting a nice improvement in coverage vs. the existing Preference K-8LCR’s. Next up is replacement of the B&W CWM7.4 LCR’s. Considering 3 options: 3 3160’s, 3 5160’s, or 2 5160’s for LR and a 3160 for center channel. Lastly, may add 2 more in-ceilings midway, probably coded as top middles. Sucks not having an ear-level rear bed layer but trying to make some lemonade.

 

[Descartes]

Agree, love the immersive formats and even enjoy just basic multichannel (“all channel”) music. Brings life to many of the old rock classics, fun. Family room has open plan to one side (kitchen), so am stuck with in-ceilings for surrounds, and also using in-ceilings for front heights. Room is 13x14 feet so need speakers with broad dispersion. Picked up a pair of these Ci-200RR’s, two more coming in Friday. Expecting a nice improvement in coverage vs. the existing Preference K-8LCR’s. Next up is replacement of the B&W CWM7.4 LCR’s. Considering 3 options: 3 3160’s, 3 5160’s, or 2 5160’s for LR and a 3160 for center channel. Lastly, may add 2 more in-ceilings midway, probably coded as top middles. Sucks not having an ear-level rear bed layer but trying to make some lemonade.

In MHO you should use the same three speakers for the front channels!

 

[Descartes]

Could do one make an open baffle speaker using these speakers?

 

[ChrisHeinonen]

Agree, love the immersive formats and even enjoy just basic multichannel (“all channel”) music. Brings life to many of the old rock classics, fun. Family room has open plan to one side (kitchen), so am stuck with in-ceilings for surrounds, and also using in-ceilings for front heights. Room is 13x14 feet so need speakers with broad dispersion. Picked up a pair of these Ci-200RR’s, two more coming in Friday. Expecting a nice improvement in coverage vs. the existing Preference K-8LCR’s. Next up is replacement of the B&W CWM7.4 LCR’s. Considering 3 options: 3 3160’s, 3 5160’s, or 2 5160’s for LR and a 3160 for center channel. Lastly, may add 2 more in-ceilings midway, probably coded as top middles. Sucks not having an ear-level rear bed layer but trying to make some lemonade.

I went with 2x 5160 + a 3160 for the center. I don't think you need to worry about having the front three match exactly, since the crossover points are very similar and you're getting the same midrange and tweeter, just losing some low end output. I'd have gone with all 3160's but wanted something that could play closer to full range since I still had to use these to review turntables at my last job and didn't want any bass management when doing that. Installing the 5160 into an existing wall would have been a huge pain as well given the size, but if you mix the two you'll be fine IMO. But I'd rather get 3x3160 and use the extra money for a better sub if that was an option.

 

[dftkell]

Another way to go, if you don't mind an on-ceiling speaker instead of an in-ceiling speaker, would be the KEF Q50a. They are $750 a pair vs. $2,000 for a pair of the Ci200R-THX. The Q50a uses a 5.25" woofer vs the 8" woofer in the Ci200R. But, I'm not sure Atmos is that demanding on the height speakers. And if you are doing four Atmos height speakers, going with the Q50a's would be $2,500 cheaper.

 

[Blackdevil77]

What did you measure the actual sensitivity to be?

 

[jimk1963]

In MHO you should use the same three speakers for the front channels!

Understood. In the KEF website photos, they actually show the 2x5160 + 1x3160 combo... gave me the initial idea.

 

[amirm]

What did you measure the actual sensitivity to be?

Sensitivity is the same as frequency response and varies with it. Hard to come up with single numbers when the response goes up and down. That said, I go by bass response and there is where I drew the red line:

So about 87 dB. Company spec is 90 dB which you could kind of justify based on response higher up.

 

[jimk1963]

I went with 2x 5160 + a 3160 for the center. I don't think you need to worry about having the front three match exactly, since the crossover points are very similar and you're getting the same midrange and tweeter, just losing some low end output. I'd have gone with all 3160's but wanted something that could play closer to full range since I still had to use these to review turntables at my last job and didn't want any bass management when doing that. Installing the 5160 into an existing wall would have been a huge pain as well given the size, but if you mix the two you'll be fine IMO. But I'd rather get 3x3160 and use the extra money for a better sub if that was an option.

I'm thinking similarly - would prefer the larger 5160's for LR to use as full range'ish for stereo playback. For movies, guessing 3x3160 would be more than sufficient for a 13x14 room. Right now I have B&W CWM7.4 LCR's, which are only 2-way with a single 6.5" woofer, and they can fill the room - with enough juice anyway - they're kinda inefficient, fussy things. Installing either 3160 or 5160 vertically is no problem in my wall (16" stud centers, no x-braces in the way) but horizontally either one will be a PITA, requiring box bracing to shore up the studs, not to mention it's a shear wall which if I follow the 20% max length opening rule, means 31" max cutout - which means, 3160.

Another option I'm wondering about is maybe a bookshelf Center channel - Q250c, Q650, R6, R2, ... Would these timbre match well to their in-walls? (Either 3160 or 5160). Considering this because our 82" Samsung sits 6 inches above the credenza, so could just place it on the credenza and have a good ear-level CC without the wall installation hassle.

 

[Descartes]

Understood. In the KEF website photos, they actually show the 2x5160 + 1x3160 combo... gave me the initial idea.

View attachment 283542

Looks very nice but so expensive, especially for in wall speakers!

 

[sjlee001]

Newbie question: why would directivity dip at 850 Hz?

 

[Jon AA]

I hate to rain on everybody's parade...but allow me to rain on the parade just a little bit.

This is indeed a very nice speaker. Unfortunately, no amount of excellence from a speaker can make up for the fundamental problems caused by pointing it the wrong way. There are very good reasons virtually nobody in the industry recommends not aiming atmos speakers at the audience. Doing so will reduce sound quality significantly.

The first issue is if the speaker is EQ'd for flat direct sound at the MPL, it will be sending elevated HF energy into a large portion of the room. Yes, the direct sound is the most important, but when so much HF energy is sent into the room (especially with 4 or 6 of them) that can be too much. The recommendation is typically to not try and get flat direct sound at the MLP but to strike a compromise, living with duller direct sound at the MLP to keep from overwhelming the room with HF energy (also a common issue for wide channels).

The second issue is covering the audience with similar sound from the speaker. Multichannel/immersive is typically aimed at being capable of providing a good experience to more than one person. If this speaker was pointed at the MLP, think about what happens when you move to different seats--you go from 0 degrees to 10, 20, 30 degrees off axis and...almost nothing happens! You still get great sound! Very slightly lowered HF but not much, and you still get pretty good, pretty flat direct sound. That would be fantastic.

But when the MLP is already starting at 40 degrees off axis, movement has much larger consequences. You are now moving to 50, 60, 70 degrees off axis. This results in a pretty massive drop in the HF giving a very dull sound for that seat. But if you move the other way, you're going to 30, 20 and 10 degrees giving you significantly elevated highs and a shrill sound. That's not what you want.

That's a massive difference in the sound of the speaker depending where you sit. Not ideal. Not even good.

I implore KEF to make a version of these with an angled baffle--something similar to the Andrew Jones setup shown earlier. Yes, that will probably screw up the spin, making it look much less pretty. But it will sound so much better in the real world when used as a ceiling speaker for immersive audio.