KEF Q350 Speaker Review

[richard12511]

Wow. "...So, reasonably good objective measurements but doesn't do it for me.." But I thought measurements are the only thing that mattered? The group absolutely slaughters anyone who issues subjective listening reviews but the site owner now contradicts his testing with a listening review in conflict with the objective testing.

Amir's recommendation has very little to nothing to do with objective measurements. Recommendation is almost entirely based off the subjective listening test. Best to look at them as separate aspects of the review, otherwise you'll be confused.

 

[amirm]

Amir's recommendation has very little to nothing to do with objective measurements.

I don't know which one is worse: the accusation or the defense!

 

[richard12511]

I don't know which one is worse: the accusation or the defense!

Sorry, wasn't meant as an accusation. Just pointing out that there was no contradiction with this review like that poster seem to be claiming. IMO, you've been very consistent with the way you recommend speakers. If you like the sound, you recommend it. If you don't, then you don't recommend it. Only review I can remember where you deviated from that was Buchardt S400. You recommended that speaker, despite not liking the way it sounded.

 

[Bds3151]

Did you just landed here? Speakers reviews often contain subjective impressions which sometimes are in contradiction with objective datas... And that is form the beginning.

Plus, the Q350 doesn't measure "stellar" either. No issue it didn't wow Amir.

Also, please avoid apples (speakers) and oranges (electronics) comparisons when it comes to subjective listening vs objective data.

I'll say it how it is. I'm just making my point - there is more to it than the current list of measurements in determining how a speaker or electronics sound. Amir just chooses not to issue subjective reviews on electronics for whatever reason. If you say it isn't true now when Amir states it clearly then you are being disingenuous. I believe Amir was being perfectly honest and clear in stating a difference between what the measurements portray and what he heard. They may be small but he heard it and I appreciate the additional information and I meant no offense. I believe this improves the usefulness of these reviews.

 

[thewas]

DIY improvements with a new crossover and some extra internal damping
https://www.hifialex.de/pimp-kef-q350/

 

[dawei88]

DIY improvements with a new crossover and some extra internal damping
https://www.hifialex.de/pimp-kef-q350/

thanks. Is there any recommendation how to place the sonofil mat inside , does it have to be in a specific way/position or just stuffed in randomly ? Also, does it also apply to the KEF Q150 or only to the Q350?

 

[thewas]

thanks. Is there any recommendation how to place the sonofil mat inside , does it have to be in a specific way/position or just stuffed in randomly ? Also, does it also apply to the KEF Q150 or only to the Q350?

Usually such materials should be placed behind the bass driver and not too close to the ports.
The damping material should also work on the Q150 but not the crossover mod without measuring and possibly some adapting.

 

[BYRTT]

thanks. Is there any recommendation how to place the sonofil mat inside , does it have to be in a specific way/position or just stuffed in randomly ? Also, does it also apply to the KEF Q150 or only to the Q350?

Usually such materials should be placed behind the bass driver and not too close to the ports.
The damping material should also work on the Q150 but not the crossover mod without measuring and possibly some adapting.

It seems they use different scalings there and i get this graph when before and after is overlaid, it could be their total modification is a general improvement but looking isolated the port curve looks to be worse after using their dampening material ..

 

[dawei88]

It seems they use different scalings there and i get this graph when before and after is overlaid, it could be their total modification is a general improvement but looking isolated the port curve looks to be worse after using their dampening material ..
View attachment 105769

I'm confused, it is not a good idea of improvement after all?

 

[BYRTT]

I'm confused, it is not a good idea of improvement after all?

My point there was enlight that isolated the port curve actual got worse after mod, so yes question is if mod is a good idea or not.

 

[aarons915]

It seems they use different scalings there and i get this graph when before and after is overlaid, it could be their total modification is a general improvement but looking isolated the port curve looks to be worse after using their dampening material ..
View attachment 105769

There's less output but that's a good thing considering the Q350 are a bit bass heavy up to 200Hz. The after curve should sound much more neutral.

 

[BYRTT]

There's less output but that's a good thing considering the Q350 are a bit bass heavy up to 200Hz. The after curve should sound much more neutral.

Based Amir's objective data agree its bit a hot or call it bass heavy in area 90-700Hz, whether the HifiAlex after curve should sound much more neutral or just different is my speculation because its complicated area that includes baffle loss correction plus diffraction plus port noice..

 

[trivium]

Its kind of funny, i listening to both the Q350 and the Q150 and preferred the Q150 since it was more neutral. The Q350 did sound bloated in comparison, while the Q150 sounded a touch cleaner all around, granted both were tested on a shelf full of other speakers which is less than ideal. So if im understanding the distortion graph correctly the port plugs did next to nothing to reduce distortion below 100hz? Its strange because putting the plugs in made a night and day difference in the bass, so if its reducing driver movement where would that sound/bass energy go? Just a thought aswell, could a guy not fabricate up some rubber bungs for the ports to make a true sealed speaker?

 

[BYRTT]

Its kind of funny, i listening to both the Q350 and the Q150 and preferred the Q150 since it was more neutral. The Q350 did sound bloated in comparison, while the Q150 sounded a touch cleaner all around, granted both were tested on a shelf full of other speakers which is less than ideal. So if im understanding the distortion graph correctly the port plugs did next to nothing to reduce distortion below 100hz? Its strange because putting the plugs in made a night and day difference in the bass, so if its reducing driver movement where would that sound/bass energy go? Just a thought aswell, could a guy not fabricate up some rubber bungs for the ports to make a true sealed speaker?

Thanks i got myself same two models but stupidly hadn't could find time listen them yet about the rubber ports making them true sealed is probably not optimal because optimal positioning and volume of internal dampning is most often very different ported verse sealed so therefor imagine ab fabric they optimized for ported, now you tell Q350 sound bloated in comparison to Q150 will say they also in Amir's analyze looks a bit too hot for 80-800Hz area so if you have EQ feature i can share some corrections you could try out.

 

[trivium]

Thanks i got myself same two models but stupidly hadn't could find time listen them yet about the rubber ports making them true sealed is probably not optimal because optimal positioning and volume of internal dampning is most often very different ported verse sealed so therefor imagine ab fabric they optimized for ported, now you tell Q350 sound bloated in comparison to Q150 will say they also in Amir's analyze looks a bit too hot for 80-800Hz area so if you have EQ feature i can share some corrections you could try out.

Sure might aswell share them, im still yet to buy a mic for REQ...i've been using an ipad app for the time being with a tone generator but its hardly accurate. It did help integrate my sub though. I ended up using a parametric EQ to lower frequencies below 100hz with the Q150's which reduced driver excursion by alot, basically the same as what a high pass filter would do since my brand new Marantz integrated does not have one. I just turned the gain up on my subwoofer to compensate for the parametric EQ. I also have some nice 220 UF caps coming to put in-line for a first order crossover which might be better, which should provide 6DB per octave reduction. The only downside is the phase shift with the capacitors inline, im not sure if it will be audible when i cross it with the sub. The distortion does not look too good below 100hz for the Uni-q though, i've also heard that speaker distortion is not really audible under 40% when the volume is at 96DB so who knows. I dont listen past 85db peaks, for my ears i dont hear distortion. Either way though if we can avoid the distortion than we might aswell do that. Not only that but the bass is definitely elevated above neutral even on the Q150, its not as "Tubby" and out of control as the Q350 but its still there and pretty easy to tune out.

Everything said im really curious to see the Q150 measurements, especially with the port plugs in and out. Am i reading the distortion graphs right though? With the port plugs installed they lower the bass by a large margin but they make absolutely no reduction in driver excursion/distortion? If thats the case that sucks, one would be far better off using a parametric EQ.

 

[BYRTT]

Sure might aswell share them...

Based Amir's anechoic analyze fullblown 26 times PEQ string ..

Below animation for prediction toggles anechoic out of box verse above EQ string, if it wasn't for port noice and probably diffraction in 500-1500Hz area curves get close be in class territory with Genelec 8341A..

Alternative easyer touch 5 times PEQ string..

...I also have some nice 220 UF caps coming to put in-line for a first order crossover which might be better, which should provide 6DB per octave reduction. The only downside is the phase shift with the capacitors inline, im not sure if it will be audible when i cross it with the sub...

Idea is good enough but in system impedance isn't very flat or need some advanced compensation networks to get it flat then you end up some nasty curves as animated below, my comment on phaseshift with the capacitors inline should be a downside is that phaseshift is not isolated a problem it happens natural for minimum phase devices because we filter or manipulate into amplitude domain and when paralell summing whatever multiple passbands we get that allpass (excess phase) downside or call it phase distortion, but it has nothing to do with the capacitor itself because it also filters natural in amplitude domain.

 

[trivium]

Based Amir's anechoic analyze fullblown 26 times PEQ string ..
View attachment 108828

Below animation for prediction toggles anechoic out of box verse above EQ string, if it wasn't for port noice and probably diffraction in 500-1500Hz area curves get close be in class territory with Genelec 8341A..
View attachment 108827


Alternative easyer touch 5 times PEQ string..
View attachment 108831



Idea is good enough but in system impedance isn't very flat or need some advanced compensation networks to get it flat then you end up some nasty curves as animated below, my comment on phaseshift with the capacitors inline should be a downside is that phaseshift is not isolated a problem it happens natural for minimum phase devices because we filter or manipulate into amplitude domain and when paralell summing whatever multiple passbands we get that allpass (excess phase) downside or call it phase distortion, but it has nothing to do with the capacitor itself because it also filters natural in amplitude domain.

View attachment 108842

Looks really good, unfortunately though i cant assume the 350 is the same as the 150 so we should wait until the measurements for that come in? Ill probably plug it in anyways. Im on another thread here and they already filled me why the capacitor is a bad idea, im just concerned about distortion but i guess i should trust my ears as i don't think i can hear it anyways.

 

[trivium]

Based Amir's anechoic analyze fullblown 26 times PEQ string ..
View attachment 108828

Below animation for prediction toggles anechoic out of box verse above EQ string, if it wasn't for port noice and probably diffraction in 500-1500Hz area curves get close be in class territory with Genelec 8341A..
View attachment 108827


Alternative easyer touch 5 times PEQ string..
View attachment 108831



Idea is good enough but in system impedance isn't very flat or need some advanced compensation networks to get it flat then you end up some nasty curves as animated below, my comment on phaseshift with the capacitors inline should be a downside is that phaseshift is not isolated a problem it happens natural for minimum phase devices because we filter or manipulate into amplitude domain and when paralell summing whatever multiple passbands we get that allpass (excess phase) downside or call it phase distortion, but it has nothing to do with the capacitor itself because it also filters natural in amplitude domain.

View attachment 108842

Ok I plugged it in and i didn’t like it, I think it’s my room more than anything else. There was a midbass bump that i had to get rid of, even on my Klipsche sub it’s the i same thing which made everything sound a bit boomy. It’s somewhere around the 90hz range, I had to cross the sub at 70 or so to aid in getting rid of it. I used a tone generator and an iPad app to help. I have it as good as it can get, I only dialed down the midbass and left everything else alone. I need to pickup a calibrated mic and learn how to use REQ but for now with the eq it’s much better. It’s strange as the graph looks more like the q150 off axis response and not as a flat, I don’t trust the iPad for the high frequencies though.

 

[catman]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the KEF Q350 Bookshelf/stand-mount speaker. It was purchased new by a member and kindly drop shipped to me for testing. The Q350 costs US $700 on Amazon including prime shipping.

Conclusions
There is clear engineering effort here to produce a speaker with good objective metrics. Alas, the upper bass boost may not work for everyone and lack of control of the two resonances has a high impact on clarity and detail. Directivity control due to coaxial driver seems to create a much more of a point source which many people think they like, but was not my cup of tea.

So, reasonably good objective measurements but doesn't do it for me. I can't recommend the KEF Q350 despite its positive attributes.

-----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Going to run off to dig more ditches for tomato plants. I think I am up to 60 plants! I don't do anything half-way. When I come back with another back pain, I hope there is more money in my pocket form you all's donations : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Thus far, I have found the recommendations on this forum to be right on the money. Alas, not so with this one, especially when contrasted with Amir's review of the ELAC DBR 6-2. To my ears, it was quite the opposite. I found the ELAC DBR-62 to be absolutely devoid of detail, and its soundstage indistinct. My only impulse is to switch everything off and go for a walk. To be honest, I have never found a set of speakers to be so dull, so boring. The KEF, on the other hand, are the very epitome of musicality, detail, balance, and a soundstage that leaves me gobsmacked at times, given the price point.

What gives? Psychoacoustics? Who knows? I ran a blind comparison test with two people, one from within my family and one from without, and there was not even a shadow of doubt -- the KEF won in a heartbeat across a range of music genres, all played using the same system with hi-res Tidal streams. Admittedly, there was some lag whilst I switched cables, but again, I did this randomly, not in any predictable way, as I went across genres. Not in a single instance was there a contest. I should add that both were "broken-in" on the same system, and for the same time -- about 50 hours. So, I did the best to conduct as good a subjective comparison as I could.

Conclusion: While the measurements and Amir's subjective impressions might well be true, one's ears are the way to go when choosing loudspeakers. I will not say this for anything else -- DACs or AMPS or Streamers, as in those instances, objective measurements often don't lie. However, with speakers, one can not escape the ambience -- the listening room, the way it has been set up and treated, and so forth.

 

[trivium]

Thus far, I have found the recommendations on this forum to be right on the money. Alas, not so with this one, especially when contrasted with Amir's review of the ELAC DBR 6-2. To my ears, it was quite the opposite. I found the ELAC DBR-62 to be absolutely devoid of detail, and its soundstage indistinct. My only impulse is to switch everything off and go for a walk. To be honest, I have never found a set of speakers to be so dull, so boring. The KEF, on the other hand, are the very epitome of musicality, detail, balance, and a soundstage that leaves me gobsmacked at times, given the price point.

What gives? Psychoacoustics? Who knows? I ran a blind comparison test with two people, one from within my family and one from without, and there was not even a shadow of doubt -- the KEF won in a heartbeat across a range of music genres, all played using the same system with hi-res Tidal streams. Admittedly, there was some lag whilst I switched cables, but again, I did this randomly, not in any predictable way, as I went across genres. Not in a single instance was there a contest. I should add that both were "broken-in" on the same system, and for the same time -- about 50 hours. So, I did the best to conduct as good a subjective comparison as I could.

Conclusion: While the measurements and Amir's subjective impressions might well be true, one's ears are the way to go when choosing loudspeakers. I will not say this for anything else -- DACs or AMPS or Streamers, as in those instances, objective measurements often don't lie. However, with speakers, one can not escape the ambience -- the listening room, the way it has been set up and treated, and so forth.

Its the main issue with measurements, they don’t account for any audio magic. There is no measurment that will properly depict the human brain and its perception on what It hears, just the same I think sometimes the graphs don’t tell the full story. I really liked my Q150’s for their imaging but ended up selling them to get the Aria 906’s. I wish I would have deployed them somewhere else in the house but my Q100s in the living room were close the wall hanging from the ceiling, they are front ported while the Q150s are rear. My wife wouldn’t let me deploy them in the bedroom since they were too large to hang on the wall, also...again they are rear ported and I had sealed speakers directly against the wall. It was a sad day to sell them though, but ultimately I had succumbed to the allure of the French aria Line if not for its imaging but it’s holographic presentation.