KEF Q100 Speaker Review

[b1daly]

Some people like sharp image, some people like the sound coming from every where and think that is closer to a live concert. I personally use headphone and do enjoy the sharp image that headphone provides. I do notice that some songs are recorded with stereo image in mind, but there are still people prefer dipoles even the image is not sharp. The big sound stage and wide sweat spot are also advantages of dipoles.

My philosophy for audio playback is "if it sounds good, it is good." I can totally believe that dipole speakers could give a wonderful presentation of music. I actually haven't heard any decent dipoles, except panel designs, which strike me as too fussy. I would like to hear a properly executed system like the Linkwitz designs at some point. I don't know enough audiophiles

The original Bose shtick was to utilize reflections off walls to evoke the spacious, diffuse sound of a hall. The other day I was listening to a pair of Bose 401s, which are kind of close to a dipole, and I enjoyed that spacious sound, for what it was. This idea of Bose is kind of ridiculous, because recordings done in live acoustic spaces already have the ambience captured, so you're just reflecting already reflected sound.

The reality is that most good recordings are strong enough to translate across many different playback systems. Surprisingly well. There is in some sense, I think, a canonical representation of the music, but it's an abstraction. The closest practical expression would be playback in the mixing studio.

 

[tuga]

Why does different frequency radiate out in different directions? Is it because different note use different part of the instrument? This is very interesting phenomena.

When you play a note in an acoustic guitar the vibration is transmited to the resonant box. Different notes will produce different resonant frequencies and the body will then radiate resonances from different places depending on the frequency being triggered.

 

[b1daly]

Do note that my comments are in reference to documental recording of classical music.

In my opinion close mic'ing has three problems:
- it distorts the timbres
- it picks up mechanical noises which are not audible from a seat in the audience
- it doesn't pick up ambience cues

And when used in a stereo mix they will destroy the illusion of listening to the original soundfield. You can fabricate a soundfield but it will be something else.

For acoustic instruments or ensembles the close mics can be used to augment the ambient mics. But placement requires care to minimize the effects you are talking about. Section mics can also be used.

But I know there are still purists for classical recording (how many I don't know).

But either way, it's all artifice. The original stereo soundfield is irrelevant. It's about the end goal of producing an effective recording, and it's the producers responsibility to deliver that to the user.

 

[b1daly]

When you play a note in an acoustic guitar the vibration is transmited to the resonant box. Different notes will produce different resonant frequencies and the body will then radiate resonances from different places depending on the frequency being triggered.

Pianos generate a crazy complicated sound field, I find them hard to record, especially if they need to be mixed with other instruments.

 

[maty]

Although you talk often about your PEQ corrections I don't remember ever seeing the result of them.

Can you pls post corrected in-room measurement of your KEFs?

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inimum-phase-vs-linear-phase.8762/post-253826

Now without the 40 Hz filter in the convolver filter. Made with JRMC PEQ but only in Left case (2.4 dB). Right is near to the side wall.

Left with 0.5 dB at 1000 Hz.

Right with delay of 0.12 ms.

Always trying to make few touch-ups and least aggressive, especially at frequencies above 300 - 500 Hz.

 

[QMuse]

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...inimum-phase-vs-linear-phase.8762/post-253826

Now without the 40 Hz filter in the convolver filter. Made with JRMC PEQ but only in Left case (2.4 dB). Right is near to the side wall.

Left with 0.5 dB at 1000 Hz.

Right with delay of 0.12 ms.

That is not a graph of your measured in-room frequency response but a snapshot of your rePhase filters. Take a mic, start REW and measure response of your speakers at LP. Or, if you have already done it just post it.

This is the kind of graph I'm looking for (frequency vs SPL):

 

[maty]

I know, but I listen to usually in near field. In the end, fine adjustments must be made with the ear, adapting them to our ears and preferences. Surely my right ear differs from the left, as usual. The years and human geometry: we have one body side a little larger than the other, we do not have perfect symmetry.

 

[tuga]

For acoustic instruments or ensembles the close mics can be used to augment the ambient mics. But placement requires care to minimize the effects you are talking about. Section mics can also be used.

But I know there are still purists for classical recording (how many I don't know).

But either way, it's all artifice. The original stereo soundfield is irrelevant. It's about the end goal of producing an effective recording, and it's the producers responsibility to deliver that to the user.

There's Mario's. And his are some of the most realistic recordings I've listened to:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...lassics-album-premiere-for-asr-members.11224/


I understand that for orchestral music a spot-mic in a particularly difficult room may be needed, and I can see merit in using a mixing in pair of ambience mics to the main pair.
This recording is in my opinion a good sounding example of a 2 main + 2 ambience (you can download the booklet for info):

https://www.eclassical.com/performers/kavakos-leonidas/sibelius-violin-concerto-in-d-minor-op47.html

For a minimally mic'ed vs stereo mix realism comparison I suggest these two recordings:

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Prokofiev-Scythian-Suite-Stravinsky-Spring/dp/B000001Q95/

https://smile.amazon.co.uk/Stravinsky-chant-rossignol-Firebird-Spring/dp/B00XV7M9AS/


Sorry, I didn't mean soundfield but soundscape or sonic-landscape; in others words what one would listen to live (in terms of tonal balance, direct vs reflected, ambience) from the a good seat in audience.

Soundfield is another matter, and something that can only be captured with a spherical mic array and reproduced inside a spherical array of speakers. Impractical for domestic use.

 

[QMuse]

I know, but I listen to usually in near field. In the end, fine adjustments must be made with the ear, adapting them to our ears and preferences.

No problem, just make a measurement at the point where your head is and post it, so we can see how well you adjusted it.

 

[Jon AA]

In this link one can visualise how different "real" stereo two microphone techiniques distribute the phantom images of instruments between the speakers ("real" stereo cannot place images outside the speakers):

I believe that to be completely false. Check out some Chesky recordings sometime--Stereo, done with two mics. They'll actually explain what you should hear on each track so you can check the imaging of your speakers (or lack thereof). The information two mics can record with the right techniques really is quite impressive.

 

[maty]

BTW, months ago, delays with some ms to have more depth. Now only 0.12 ms (to compensate the distance). Why? The Miflex KCPU-01 0.01uF 600 Vdc as a bypass of the very cheap M.D.L. capacitor.

After, I changed the very cheap Bennic cast resistor with Mills MRA 0.68 Ohms.

In the future probably I will change the cheap cap with Jantzen Superior Z-Cap 3.9 uF. And after the binding posts. Always step by step, first one box to compare with the other. Same two persons in the test.

 

[tuga]

I believe that to be completely false. Check out some Chesky recordings sometime--Stereo, done with two mics. They'll actually explain what you should hear on each track so you can check the imaging of your speakers (or lack thereof). The information two mics can record with the right techniques really is quite impressive.

You are entitled to your beliefs. But side-wall reflections can be used to that create effect (of widening the soundstage and thus sliding the full right or left phantom image out to the side).

Linkwitz talks about it here: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/Recording/phantom images.pdf

 

[tuga]

I believe that to be completely false. Check out some Chesky recordings sometime--Stereo, done with two mics. They'll actually explain what you should hear on each track so you can check the imaging of your speakers (or lack thereof). The information two mics can record with the right techniques really is quite impressive.

If you mean track 10 of this CD then I've checked it often.

https://www.allmusic.com/album/ches...diophile-test-compact-disc-vol-1-mw0000308300

 

[Jon AA]

You are entitled to your beliefs. But side-wall reflections can be used to that create effect (of widening the soundstage and thus sliding the full right or left phantom image out to the side).

He's talking about different things. Imaging is a construction of your ears/brain. It isn't real. There are many psychoacoustic tricks one can play on it to make it believe it's hearing something from outside the width of your speakers.

 

[Jon AA]

If you mean track 10 of this CD then I've checked it often.

I can't remember which one that is off the top of my head and your video is blocked in the US. But here's one everybody can try (no, it probably won't work worth a crap on your computer speakers.....):

That works freakishly well with my speakers that have no sidewall anywhere near them.

Beyond that, those Chesky albums have some really fantastic stuff using actual music. After listening to a track, read the description and see if the instruments/vocals were where you thought they were.

 

[tuga]

I can't remember which one that is off the top of my head and your video is blocked in the US. But here's one everybody can try (no, it probably won't work worth a crap on your computer speakers.....):

That works freakishly well with my speakers that have no sidewall anywhere near them.

Beyond that, those Chesky albums have some really fantastic stuff using actual music. After listening to a track, read the description and see if the instruments/vocals were where you thought they were.

I'll try your video later.
Is it a "real stereo" (one channel one mic no phase tampering) recording?

The LEDR is funky too, but something completely different: https://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_ledr.php

 

[tecnogadget]

That is not a graph of your measured in-room frequency response but a snapshot of your rePhase filters. Take a mic, start REW and measure respo

nse of your speakers at LP. Or, if you have already done it just post it.

This is the kind of graph I'm looking for (frequency vs SPL):

View attachment 54095

Here are some REW measurements made with UMIK-1 from the listening position of my center R600 (but can't remember if it was crossed with sub) from 3 years ago. Is this kind of thing you are asking for Q100 ??

R600 with REW/UMIK-1 at tweeter level from listening position RAW response.

*Note that 500hz peak/800hz dip is NOT the FR of the speaker but interaction with my room/shelf/first-floor bounce cancelation.​

R600 with REW/UMIK-1 at tweeter level from listening position PEQ to my taste.



Overlay

 

[QMuse]

BTW, months ago, delays with some ms to have more depth. Now only 0.12 ms (to compensate the distance). Why? The Miflex KCPU-01 0.01uF 600 Vdc as a bypass of the very cheap M.D.L. capacitor.

After, I changed the very cheap Bennic cast resistor with Mills MRA 0.68 Ohms.

In the future probably I will change the cheap cap with Jantzen Superior Z-Cap 3.9 uF. And after the binding posts. Always step by step, first one box to compare with the other. Same two persons in the test.

Ok, so you never actually measured your speakers as it is easier to just bubble about your "improvements" than actually fix your in-room response, right?

 

[Shazb0t]

Ok, so you never actually measured your speakers as it is easier to just bubble about your "improvements" than actually fix your in-room response, right?

Of course not. Measuring his "improvements" would destroy his reality.

 

[Prana Ferox]

Well, that sounds a bit crazy. Name one musical instrument that is a two-point source.

This discussion seems focused on acoustic / orchestral performances. For amplified performances the sound doesn't come from the instrument, it comes from the amp(s) and cab(s). It is not uncommon for, say, guitarists to have a 'dry' unprocessed signal and a 'wet' processed signal going to different cabs.

For bigger live performances the mix only purely exists on the mixing board. Further, it's increasingly popular for musicians to use IEMs and have no on-stage amping / monitoring, so the PA mix is the actual source even at smaller venues.