• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

KEF Q100 Speaker Review

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,478
Likes
2,490
Location
Sin City, NV
I much preferred Ls50 sound over this.
In that case I definitely wouldn't like these at all. I guess a better question is (assuming a general consensus in that preference) is why the scoring is in opposition... likely still more tweaking required. I didn't think there was anything "horrible" at all about the LS50's - I just found it weirdly congested when I auditioned them. Which is too bad, because I would love to have used them in a 3.1 setup with the ability to lay the center down.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
3,865
Likes
9,635
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Oh very interesting. So better than their higher-binned model? (LS50 was 4.48/6.61) - at the very least that indicates by that metric that the "value" estimation is quite valid, presuming you liked the LS50's sound. I'm one that didn't, so not for me - but I'm in the minority on that it seems.
Dissecting the graphs, the Q100 indeed looks better, and doesn’t have any issues in the presence region that the LS50 has. The LS50 has better vertical performance though, so that may be something in play.
They have a similar -6dB frequency, but the LS50 has a much deeper -3dB frequency, which may be balancing its tonal balance better.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,313
Likes
134,751
Location
Seattle Area
Has @maty seen this haha he’s gonna go bonkers
I actually like to test a GR tweaked Q100. I wonder how we can get that done (no, I am not going to go and ask).
 

AudioJester

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
406
Likes
428
Ok, I am finding it difficult to follow some of the conclusions to the measurements. This speaker is cheaper (although passive) than the JBL 705P and has a higher preference rating. To me it looks like it would respond well to dsp/eq like the Kali speaker. But, its not recommended because of subjective impressions? Or maybe I am not comparing speakers correctly?
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
3,865
Likes
9,635
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Hmm...
Q100:
index.php


LS50:
index.php



Wonder if the woofer of the LS50 is just a slightly tweaked version.
 

digicidal

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
1,478
Likes
2,490
Location
Sin City, NV
I own the LS50 since it was released and without EQ I would prefer the Q100, but with EQ its a better loudspeaker (better driver, distortion and more acoustically optimised and dead housing)

That's a very good point. When I auditioned them it was without any correction at all on an older integrated. Perhaps I will give then another try once I get a good prepro (still waiting for the SDP55 release & review) and see if that helps clarify things. Although completely different in nature than the coloration of the Klipsch Reference line... I had the exact same problems with both - i.e. I couldn't ever not hear the speaker. Naturally there's a ton of bias in that - although I did blind test... I still knew which two speakers I was listening to and I was very familiar with the Polks I compared them to.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
35,313
Likes
134,751
Location
Seattle Area
Ok, I am finding it difficult to follow some of the conclusions to the measurements. This speaker is cheaper (although passive) than the JBL 705P and has a higher preference rating. To me it looks like it would respond well to dsp/eq like the Kali speaker. But, its not recommended because of subjective impressions? Or maybe I am not comparing speakers correctly?
I listened to these two differently. 705p was in near field and Q100, far. I could try to listen to Q100 nearfield and do AB comparison against the 705p....

And a note on scoring: I do not have high confidence in the results. At some point we need verification of those scores against my measurements.
 

vavan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
341
Likes
204
Location
Kazan, Russia
Your comment about hearing distortion seems odd given the distortion measurement being very good
well, they keep repeating that THD measurements are not very indicative, may be some kind of multitone IMD will reveal more?
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,669
View attachment 53768

Speaker Listening Tests
There was also some distortion which seemed to be constant throughout everything I played. A buzzing type of secondary tones.

I believe a port plug comes with the speaker. For testing, I just stuck my hand in the port. That nicely lowered the bass boominess and seemed to reduce the distortion I was hearing.

How do you explain that measured distortion looks pretty decent (better than most speakers you've measured so far) yet you were hearing "constant distortion" during listening test?
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,957
Likes
2,594
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
How many times have I written lately that the only good thing about the Q100 is the 5.25" coaxial Uni-Q driver?

Everything else needs to be improved, starting with adding mass + damping.

Listening must be done at 40º-50º, that is, off the axis.

The bass-reflex can also be retouched, as I did for quite some time (now it is as before, with the same diameter).

The ideal is to have the rear bass-reflex like the R100 or the Q150 but then they need more distance to the wall, one of my limitations.

And with that spinorama, the logical thing is to retouch the frequency response smoothly, thinking about how it will be heard / measured at the listening point and not on the axis, which is why I have not yet modified the crossover, adopting the one designed by Zvu, preferring first to experiment with the improvement of its components. For now, minimum phase PEQ + rePhase -> convolution filter.

Also, that new sounds fatal, without bass, which is why I was about to return them.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,921
Likes
7,282
Location
NYC
I listened to these two differently. 705p was in near field and Q100, far. I could try to listen to Q100 nearfield and do AB comparison against the 705p....

And a note on scoring: I do not have high confidence in the results. At some point we need verification of those scores against my measurements.

I think a huge part of it is going to be SPL limitations for you relative to the preference score. One has to imagine there were much fewer god active DSP speakers in the sample pool back when the study was made, speakers that otherwise measure great but are limited in output.


How many times have I written lately that the only good thing about the Q100 is the 5.25" coaxial Uni-Q driver?

Everything else needs to be improved, starting with adding mass + damping.

Listening must be done at 40º-50º, that is, off the axis.

The bass-reflex can also be retouched, as I did for quite some time (now it is as before, with the same diameter).

The ideal is to have the rear bass-reflex like the R100 or the Q150 but then they need more distance to the wall, one of my limitations.

And with that spinorama, the logical thing is to retouch the frequency response smoothly, thinking about how it will be heard / measured at the listening point and not on the axis, which is why I have not yet modified the crossover, adopting the one designed by Zvu, preferring first to experiment with the improvement of its components. For now, minimum phase PEQ + rePhase -> convolution filter.

Also, that new sounds fatal, without bass, which is why I was about to return them.
You were made for this moment:)
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,957
Likes
2,594
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
I was also aware of the limitations due to cost savings on the AVR Marantz SR4500, but I believed I could solve them. And now it sounds a lot better than when I bought it.

I always consider the possibility of improvement, involving little expense. That is why I am interested in knowing how they are built inside, hence the images that I optimize and share.
 

thewas

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
3,357
Likes
7,073
I listened to these two differently. 705p was in near field and Q100, far. I could try to listen to Q100 nearfield and do AB comparison against the 705p....

And a note on scoring: I do not have high confidence in the results. At some point we need verification of those scores against my measurements.
I also have not too high confidence to the Harman metric due to reasons I have stated already in other threads (PIR smoothness instead of both LW and directivity smoothness) but on the other hand I have more confidence to them than to your quite random and quick listening tests (for example one small speaker in nearfield and the other in farfield) and corresponding panther choices.
And before you claim that one is sold as hifi speaker and the other as a nearfield monitor, on the other hand its obvious that a 5" compact loudspeaker won't be clean enough at high listening distances and thus needed volumes without a sub but should it be punished for that?
 
Last edited:

dukanvadet

Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 18, 2019
Messages
45
Likes
56
About that distortion heard, was it also present in the LS50? There are some interesting solutions in the ls50 whitepaper for damping of port resonance and cabinet. Is those present in the Q100 as well? Could be an explanation. Also looking at the impedance it seems the Q100 is crossed over a little higher to the tweeter.
 
Last edited:

beefkabob

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
1,093
Likes
1,335
I always consider the possibility of improvement, involving little expense. That is why I am interested in knowing how they are built inside, hence the images that I optimize and share.

And I love the pictures. However, inside build and actual performance are different things. Related but different.

I also have not too high confidence to the Harman metric due to reasons I have stated already in other threads (PIR smoothness instead of both LW and directivity smoothness) but on the other hand I have much more confidence to them rather to your random and very amateurish listening tests (one small speaker in nearfield and the other in far field) and corresponding panther choices.
And before you claim that one is sold as hifi speaker and the other as a nearfield monitor but on the other hand its obvious that a 5" compact loudspeaker won't be clean enough at high listening distances and thus needed volumes without a sub but should it be punished for that?

I don't think the science for speakers is, unlike it is with DACs, a solved problem. I do, however, trust Amir's listening tests more than I trust those of any youtube listener. I mean, the youtubers are like 1/10, and Amir is maybe a 3.5/10. The tests would have to be level matched and double blind to truly be worthwhile. Anything short of that is just masturbation.

And speakers are just so unlike DACs and amps. When you conduct a listening test or measurements, you're necessarily measuring the room just as much as you're measuring the speaker. The Klippel system only seems to do so much in eliminating the room from the measurements.

That said, I'm all for double-blind listening by trained listeners.
 

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,669
About that distortion heard, was it also present in the LS50?

I think that before asking additional questions the first question that needs to be answered is how comes distortion measurement didn't detect it.

I do, however, trust Amir's listening tests more than I trust those of any youtube listener.

Dilemma here is Amir's listening tests vs distorion measurement - so, in which one should we trust?
 

maty

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 12, 2017
Messages
3,957
Likes
2,594
Location
Tarragona (Spain)
About distance, loudspeakers with small woofer -> max distance to the speakers about 3 meter. 5.25" Uni-Q has small surface than others 5.25" woofers -> max distance about 2.5 m.

Another deficiency, with respect to LS50, is that it distorts much more at high volumes, as can be verified in the measurements at 96 dBSPL made by Erin Hardison (hardisj).

* https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/kef-q100-drive-unit/

* https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/kef-ls50-drive-unit/


The peak of the port was also known, measured earlier by a Russian magazine.

[Russian] http://www.salonav.com/arch/2012/09/016-kef.htm Year: 2012

KEF-Q100-frequency-AudioVideo.png


KEF-Q100-impedance-phase-AudioVideo.png


Humm, comparison images with other speakers are no longer available.!

[Russian] http://www.salonav.com/arch/2012/09/016.htm

I have a lot of images, graphs and measurements of the latest KEF 5.25" Uni-Q coaxials.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom