KEF Q350 Speaker Review

[rebbiputzmaker]

Quietly build speakers using a different approach.

IMO it is difficult to deny the theoretical superiority of coaxial drivers. Results in real life may not meet one’s expectations, but the concept is valid.

 

[QMuse]

Quietly build speakers using a different approach.

Isn't it cheaper to advertise in a bunch od audio magazines and kindly ask them for a nice reviews?

 

[andreasmaaan]

Not directly as there are other instruments in music. I am saying from evolutionary point of point, the central cortex would need to be tolerant of human voices have different response vertically than horizontally and filter out that out. Or else the conflict would cause annoyance.

It is a theory.

Fair enough

A couple of points I'd make though:

Firstly, those charts you posted match an upward-tilted coaxial speaker more closely than a non-coaxial. I.e. despite the radiation pattern being asymmetrical, there is no lobing.

And secondly, because our ears are horizontally aligned, we are better at detecting directional cues in the horizontal plane, from which it arguably follows that we are better at distinguishing lateral reflections from direct sound than we are those reflections that arrive from above and below. Given this, it may be the case that coloured up/down reflections are actually more detrimental to perceived tonal balance than coloured lateral reflections, not less.

The findings of Bech (will post link when back home on the laptop) certainly seem to support this.

EDIT: here's the Bech study.

 

[andreasmaaan]

However, to your earlier point about KEFs slopes vs the revels, I don't know how many people are looking at the PIR and ERDI curves for determining directivity. SPL plots or normalized SPL plots are for more useful for this purpose. The Spinorama curves have too much vertical influence and make directivity difficult to visualize. The Revels most certainly have wider horizontal directivity than the KEfs overall.

I agree with that, but Olive did not find that horizontal directivity per se was a factor (in isolation from PIR and ERDI).

Note that I'm not saying horizontal directivity is categorically not an independent factor, but rather that there is no evidence in Olive's findings that it is an independent factor.

 

[tuga]

I'd love to hear more about KEF blind tests though. And conversely, I've always found it curious that KEF speakers never seem to come up in available data on Harman blind tests, since they're such popular speakers. Might just be because most of that information seems to be pretty old and maybe KEF wasn't as popular in the US back then. But still.

Or maybe Harman does not wish to show how well the competition is doing...
At the end of the day, this research is an invaluable marketing tool.

 

[daftcombo]

As apex predators... they are usually the same thing - we are the most likely predators in almost every case now (outside of edge cases and some native populations at least). I couldn't agree more with the conclusion and the impact that likely has on our subjective preferences however.

I have some full-range speakers that are positively horrible to listen to almost any genre of music on... but they absolutely nail the 600Hz-4kHz range (while butchering everything else). As long as it's just human voices (a dialog-driven movie for example)... I'd rather listen on them than anything else I own. Completely real sounding as if the person is in the room - the dynamics and imaging are almost unsettling.

Must be great for listening to audio books?

 

[tuga]

It would make a lot of sense if the "directivity width preference" is actually a preference for ratio of direct:reflected sound.

There are other factors which affect the direct/reflected ratio such as room width, wall surface material, furnishings, treatment, setting up the speakers firing along the longest dimension of the room or the amount of toe-in.

And there are speakers, such as the Dalis, which have their flattest response at 30°, when the speakers are firing parallel to the side walls. Maybe this is the ideal speaker for those who treasure side-wall reflection.

https://www.stereophile.com/content/dali-rubicon-8-loudspeaker-measurements

Of course they will sound awful when evaluated in mono but why would you do that anyway.

 

[tuga]

And secondly, because our ears are horizontally aligned, we are better at detecting directional cues in the horizontal plane, from which it arguably follows that we are better at distinguishing lateral reflections from direct sound than we are those reflections that arrive from above and below. Given this, it may be the case that coloured up/down reflections are actually more detrimental to perceived tonal balance than coloured lateral reflections, not less.

Real stereo doesn't do "vertical" (only "depth" and "azimut") because the two speakers are, like our ears, horizontally aligned.

 

[fredoamigo]

Or maybe Harman does not wish to show how well the competition is doing...
At the end of the day, this research is an invaluable marketing tool

You have to be naive to think that Harman is a charity and they only work for the good of the community, even though their research benefits everyone.
Yes of course, it's also a marketing tool and that there's a return on investment doesn't shock me....... But what other group could afford to do that?

 

[GXAlan]

Real stereo doesn't do "vertical" (only "depth" and "azimut") because the two speakers are, like our ears, horizontally aligned.

Cover or plug one ear. Using your free hand, snap your fingers above and below your other ear or just rub two fingers together. Or have someone else do it while you close your eyes.

With only one ear, you can still maintain some positional data. The shape of our outer ear apparently plays a role.

 

[tuga]

Cover or plug one ear. Using your free hand, snap your fingers above and below your other ear or just rub two fingers together. Or have someone else do it while you close your eyes.

With only one ear, you can still maintain some positional data. The shape of our outer ear apparently plays a role.

Yes, but you are conflating live sound with stereo reproduction.

Stereo is an illusion, or the phantom image location is an illusion. It happens in your brain. Real stereo positions the images on one of or between the two speakers.

 

[civi]

Absence of any direct research, it seems to be our brain would tolerate vertical directivity errors.

For previously described scenario, with single speaker considerably higher, I'd assume go-to is minimal ceiling reflection and (i.e. -30) vertical as close as possible to on-axis response, so speaker vertical misplacement is as transparent as possible. Again, without research, just from my superficial understanding of those metrics.

 

[Vindermere]

Or maybe Harman does not wish to show how well the competition is doing...
At the end of the day, this research is an invaluable marketing tool.

Harman use sometimes kef speakers. I remember in avsforum a seller said that kef speakers are very close into harman blind test of revel speakers but always revel win.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/710918-revel-owners-thread-399.html

 

[Vindermere]

I love kef but i regret in Q and R series, the use of low-end components in the filter. Check the filter of a B&w 700 speaker the difference is huge. B&W use munforf cap.

 

[GXAlan]

Yes, but you are conflating live sound with stereo reproduction.

Stereo is an illusion, or the phantom image location is an illusion. It happens in your brain. Real stereo positions the images on one of or between the two speakers.

I am not sure I follow your point although I suppose the qualifier of “real” stereo is not a term I am familiar with. With two speakers, the vertical dimension can be controlled by the person mixing the music through HRTFs or even tweaking pitch and reverb, and even like Dolby Atmos height virtualization is able to play with the phase and reverb to put sounds in different planes.

 

[Sancus]

Harman use sometimes kef speakers. I remember in avsforum a seller said that kef speakers are very close into harman blind test of revel speakers but always revel win.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/710918-revel-owners-thread-399.html

That's interesting although they seem to primarily be talking about the 2-way Kefs in that post, not the 3-ways.

 

[Lao Lu]

Thanks for the input.

I am always suspicious of ported designs - seems difficult to get right.
Or is it just really easy to F it up on these constrained-for-space "bookshelf" layouts?
That's more of a rhetorical question...

I would love to see some ATCs measured....no ports....

 

[tuga]

I am not sure I follow your point although I suppose the qualifier of “real” stereo is not a term I am familiar with. With two speakers, the vertical dimension can be controlled by the person mixing the music through HRTFs or even tweaking pitch and reverb, and even like Dolby Atmos height virtualization is able to play with the phase and reverb to put sounds in different planes.

Real stereo means 1-mic 1-channel 1-speaker. Sometimes an ambience pair is mixed with a main pair. Classical music is often recorded this way. It's a documental approach, the recording goal is to recreate the acoustic soundscape of a musical event.

A stereo mix means an "infinite" amount of usually mono mics (a drum kit can take as much as a dozen) mixed down into 2 channel stereo. With non-classical music (which is sometimes multi-mic'ed) special effects are added for musical enhancement during the production stage. There is hardly ever a musical event, the music is fabricated in the mixing desk. In other words, the recording is the music.

I don't care for Atmos, upmixing or any other post-processing at the reproduction stage. In my opinion it kills the sound. I am mainly a classical listener and in my view minimalist un- or very-mildly-processed recordings sound much better / more realistic.

 

[tuga]

I would love to see some ATCs measured....no ports....

Almost all serious ATCs (≥SCM50) have ports.

 

[Bjorn]

They have different rooms. This is the smaller one that I have been to a couple of times:
I think as long as speakers are always tested in the same position, then the test is valid. Otherwise, how useful would their score be if it did not apply to a typical home use?

Quite the opposite. Different speaker designs need different placement to measure and sound optimal. A good reason to question Harman's tests.