KEF Q350 Speaker Review

[QMuse]

And it looks like IMD is higher in the Kef, I'd like to see that measured more.

I can hardly remember seeing speaker with lower THD and IMD than what was measured there with Reference 1.

 

[Soniclife]

Higher than what? It actually looks quite good to me based on these measurements.

Looks higher than this.
https://www.fidelity-online.de/neumann-kh-420-messungen/

 

[andreasmaaan]

Looks higher than this.
https://www.fidelity-online.de/neumann-kh-420-messungen/

That's true, but we're comparing a speaker with a 6.5" woofer to a speaker with a 10" woofer (which is much more than double the surface area), so you'd expect the latter to have significantly lower distortion at such high SPLs.

85dBA@4m = 97dBa@1m, with peaks of 112dB@1m. This is a very loud signal for a 6.5" standmount speaker to be reproducing, let alone reproducing cleanly.

 

[Soniclife]

That's true, but we're comparing a speaker with a 6.5" woofer to a speaker with a 10" woofer (which is much more than double the surface area), so you'd expect the latter to have significantly lower distortion at such high SPLs.

85dBA@4m = 97dBa@1m, with peaks of 112dB@1m. This is a very loud signal for a 6.5" standmount speaker to be reproducing, let alone reproducing cleanly.

It's the mid-range IMD that I was interested in comparing, that should be the same for the bigger Kef reference as well. What I don't have is any idea how the Kef compares to a wide range of speakers, rather than just this well executed monitor.

 

[andreasmaaan]

It's the mid-range IMD that I was interested in comparing, that should be the same for the bigger Kef reference as well. What I don't have is any idea how the Kef compares to a wide range of speakers, rather than just this well executed monitor.

Fair point.

FWIW, the KH420 is just about the lowest distortion studio monitor of its size on the market. And, in the midrange, the KEF's IM distortion is hardly high.

Compare it for example to the 2-way studio monitors also measured by the same site (@2m, presumably because the 2-ways couldn't get to 85dBA @4m at all):

The KEF beats all three in the midrange, two of them by a wide margin.

EDIT: just realised I'd misread the graphs. It actually beats all three by a wide margin, two by a very wide margin (it stays around -45dB to -50dB in the midrange vs -30dB to -20dB for the three two-ways).

 

[txbdan]

I'm currently demo'ing ten pairs of $300ish bookshelf speakers and these measurements back up what i've been saying about the Q150s (assuming they're similar in nature to the Q350s). They're laid back and mid heavy. They get muddy and boxy. In fact of all the speakers, they stood out as being off the map in that regard. At $300/pr (as they often go on sale) they're offer a nice cohesive and comfy sound. But at $600/pr msrp, no way.

 

[napilopez]

Yet their manual shows this:
View attachment 64793

Strange. Maybe lack of communication? Different folks designing the manual than those working on the design of the speaker and/or giving placement advice.

I've found sometimes manuals don't have complete oversight from engineering. I asked about this specific discrepancy with the R3, which also shows the speaker both toed in and not toed in, and this was the answer KEF gave me:

" Depending on certain variables like room acoustics and setup, some toe-in may help enhance sound reproduction in the main listening spot, but for all but the most extreme room conditions, toe-in is likely not necessary. We show it both ways so the end-user knows they have a choice for setup. "

The assumption seems to be that the user will not toe in the speakers.

 

[bigjacko]

I've found sometimes manuals don't have complete oversight from engineering. I asked about this specific discrepancy with the R3, which also shows the speaker both toed in and not toed in, and this was the answer KEF gave me:

" Depending on certain variables like room acoustics and setup, some toe-in may help enhance sound reproduction in the main listening spot, but for all but the most extreme room conditions, toe-in is likely not necessary. We show it both ways so the end-user knows they have a choice for setup. "

The assumption seems to be that the user will not toe in the speakers.

I have used those speakers in near field. I found that if I don't toe them in, my left ear and right ear are not listening to the same thing. But if people use it in far field maybe no toe in will be fine.

 

[tuga]

I've found sometimes manuals don't have complete oversight from engineering. I asked about this specific discrepancy with the R3, which also shows the speaker both toed in and not toed in, and this was the answer KEF gave me:

" Depending on certain variables like room acoustics and setup, some toe-in may help enhance sound reproduction in the main listening spot, but for all but the most extreme room conditions, toe-in is likely not necessary. We show it both ways so the end-user knows they have a choice for setup. "

The assumption seems to be that the user will not toe in the speakers.

I believe that the non-audiophile user (most people) will not toe-in their speakers regradless of what the manual suggests because they see speakers as another piece of furniture which must fit in with the geometry of the room.

P.S.: perhaps Dali is right in their choice to produce speakers that are flat at 30°...

 

[thewas]

P.S.: perhaps Dali is right in their choice to produce speakers that are flat at 30°...

Also with this "trick" you can have a more bright sound power while having a linear direct sound, which might be the preference of some people who find usual loudspeakers too dark.

 

[napilopez]

I believe that the non-audiophile user (most people) will not toe-in their speakers regradless of what the manual suggests because they see speakers as another piece of furniture which must fit in with the geometry of the room.

P.S.: perhaps Dali is right in their choice to produce speakers that are flat at 30°...

Yeah. In the devantier papers that defined the listening window and early reflections curve for the spinorama, most of the homes surveyed listened off axis. It's a small sample size with 15 homes, but i'm pretty sure most consumers don't listen completely toed in. Speakers usually just look nicer pointing straight out.

 

[tuga]

Yeah. In the devantier papers that defined the listening window and early reflections curve for the spinorama, most of the homes surveyed listened off axis. It's a small sample size with 15 homes, but i'm pretty sure most consumers don't listen completely toed in. Speakers usually just look nicer pointing straight out.

The swivelling head of the 801/802 Matrix addressed that quite effectively:

 

[andreasmaaan]

The swivelling head of the 801/802 Matrix addressed that quite effectively:

More floorstanders should do this.

 

[napilopez]

The swivelling head of the 801/802 Matrix addressed that quite effectively:

Woah! that's cool. Had no idea that was a thing.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

The swivelling head of the 801/802 Matrix addressed that quite effectively:

Oh, that's clever!

 

[tuga]

Woah! that's cool. Had no idea that was a thing.

Kef had one too:

 

[HooStat]

Is it safe to assume that all of Toole's work was based on listening on the direct (0 degree) axis? And the Harman double-blind testing as well?

 

[napilopez]

Is it safe to assume that all of Toole's work was based on listening on the direct (0 degree) axis? And the Harman double-blind testing as well?

I would absolutely not jump to that conclusion. The preference studies say that listening was done on-axis. But the Toole, NRC, And Harman research goes back decades. These people are working every day. It's quite a stretch to imagine that they never once thought "you know, I wonder what these speakers sound like if I don't toe them in all the way" =]

Plus as mentioned elsewhere, Revel appears to optimize for the listening window rather than the on axis.

 

[HooStat]

Good point. I wasn't suggesting that they never thought of it. It was more that the specific results might depend on which axis one picked for a comparison in a blind test. It really underscores how difficult it is to compare some speakers and it might explain why in some cases, people prefer a one speaker over another. I am thinking of the Paradigm Persona speakers with that rising frequency response -- I have seen opinions all over the map on that one. Opinions on that one seem to vary a lot depending on toe-in (and preference for "detail").

 

[tuga]

Good point. I wasn't suggesting that they never thought of it. It was more that the specific results might depend on which axis one picked for a comparison in a blind test. It really underscores how difficult it is to compare some speakers and it might explain why in some cases, people prefer a one speaker over another. I am thinking of the Paradigm Persona speakers with that rising frequency response -- I have seen opinions all over the map on that one. Opinions on that one seem to vary a lot depending on toe-in (and preference for "detail").

Toe'ing out reduces phantom image focus and increases interaction with side walls which also reduces focus. Some people like that but I would venture that it is not "as correct as" listening on-axis.
My anecdotal experience leads me to belive that focus is of the utmost importance when you are listening to complex programme such as orchestral or large polyphonic choral music as it helps with separation. Might not be as important with a jazz trio.