KEF Q350 Speaker Review

[Descartes]

[/QUOTE] “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.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100% listening in your own room is critical to insure you like the speakers!

 

[Anhedonius]

4+ Yr. Owner of the q350 and just recently came across this thread. Figured I would share what has helped me get what seems like the most out of them before too much diminishing returns. It is interesting to see everyone else come to similar conclusions on the pitfalls of this speaker and where to compensate the most for balance.

Right now I have the q350s near-field port-plugged with the tweeter at ear level with slight toe-in. I have tried using a VTV Purifi amp, Schiit Freya+ preamp and minidsp SHD for room correction and my in-room measurements show the same "wonkiness" around 90-120 but are remarkably flat from then on.

Instead of using dirac which felt a bit overkill with the little correction needed I have dual 10" studio subs crossed over at 110hz and it has made the q350 totally holographic in regards to center image and soundstage without flubby bass.

I have cranked these to some unreasonable levels with no perceived distortion and letting the subs take the workload off makes them sound fast and clear.

I use this setup for Music and gaming happily for a few months and even if I went to the LS50 meta or R3 I'm not sure how big of a difference it would make with how flat these sound.

 

[maty]

My modified KEF Q100 also have the bass reflex plugged. With a little equalization (from JRMC) I "recover and improve" the bass that I lose.

 

[PeterMac]

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.

Elac's DBR62 have great details but they are balanced not expose highs. Also these speakers like to be play loud to show full potentials. I had for example KEF Q100 and they was sharp on top as razers for me, too much. very fatigue experience. That's why KEF balanced Q150/Q350 much more. Also I think Q100 was designed to be surround speakers to expose small details in movies.

 

[AlexanderM]

I listened to the KEF Q350, Q750 & Q950 today at Visions and was quite impressed! Also listened to the Polk Signature Elite S20 and it also sounded quite good, it's the upgrade to the model that received a good review from Amir.

 

[maty]

Elac's DBR62 have great details but they are balanced not expose highs. Also these speakers like to be play loud to show full potentials. I had for example KEF Q100 and they was sharp on top as razers for me, too much. very fatigue experience. That's why KEF balanced Q150/Q350 much more. Also I think Q100 was designed to be surround speakers to expose small details in movies.

Loxjie A30 Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the multifunction Loxjie A30 power (speaker and headphone) amplifier with integrated USB DAC and Bluetooth input. It was kindly sent to me by a member and costs US $159 plus $7 shipping on Amazon. The A30 sports a high resolution and high contrast...

www.audiosciencereview.com

KEF Q100, 85 dB and 4 Ohms -> they need at least 100 watts at 4 Ohms. Without power they sound bad.

 

[thewas]

KEF Q100, 85 dB and 4 Ohms -> they need at least 100 watts at 4 Ohms. Without power they sound bad.

That depends on the listening level, also while its good to have amp reserves to keep amp distorion low, at 100 Watt without a high pass you will have long have brought the woofer to its limit with bassy content https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/driveunits/kef-q100-drive-unit/

 

[trevor_bartram]

I'm new to AudioScienceReview. I came here looking for a review of the Q150 but ended up reading about the Q350 instead, I have a couple of questions:
1. I'm unsure what Kef states but I believe the boosted mid bass is intentional and is corrected during room placement. The speaker (actually, its driver) should be placed at 1/4 wavelength at 150Hz (or 22") from the nearest room boundary (hard surface) and that should be the rear wall. If done correctly, the reflected rear wave will tend to cancel the direct wave to achieve a flat in room response. All other room boundaries should be at a greater distance and, if at all possible, not integer multiples of 1/4 wavelength.
2. Could the raggedness of the speakers response at higher frequencies be due to edge diffraction of the front baffle? The LS50 uses round edges to minimize diffraction. The LS50 front baffle is obviously more expensive to manufacture, how much I don't know? Could Kef simply be trying to differentiate their products by making the Q150 a lesser LS50?

 

[617]

I'm new to AudioScienceReview. I came here looking for a review of the Q150 but ended up reading about the Q350 instead, I have a couple of questions:
1. I'm unsure what Kef states but I believe the boosted mid bass is intentional and is corrected during room placement. The speaker (actually, its driver) should be placed at 1/4 wavelength at 150Hz (or 22") from the nearest room boundary (hard surface) and that should be the rear wall. If done correctly, the reflected rear wave will tend to cancel the direct wave to achieve a flat in room response. All other room boundaries should be at a greater distance and, if at all possible, not integer multiples of 1/4 wavelength.
2. Could the raggedness of the speakers response at higher frequencies be due to edge diffraction of the front baffle? The LS50 uses round edges to minimize diffraction. The LS50 front baffle is obviously more expensive to manufacture, how much I don't know? Could Kef simply be trying to differentiate their products by making the Q150 a lesser LS50?

1. The recommendations given by KEF and other speaker companies regarding room placement and bass response are deceptive and don't really capture the reality of the situation, which is that below a certain frequency, typically around 300hz, bass response will be highly chaotic from position to position. Simply saying that moving the speaker 1/4 wavelength at 150hz fills in some response anomaly is not helpful, since if you were to move six inches in any direction the entire bass response will be different anyway. This is a fundamental limitation of stereo set ups, and the only way to deal with it is to use at least three bass sources and equalize them carefully.

2. That would be a reasonable guess. If you look at the directivity sonogram, the 700-1.2khz region is where the speaker is transitioning from largely omnidirectional to directional radiation. This is typically where you will see baffle artifacts. A centrally mounted driver will always magnify these effects, unless the corners are treated as in the LS50. The Q150 is definitely a lesser LS50 but I would take the R3 out of either any day of the week.

 

[Descartes]

1. The recommendations given by KEF and other speaker companies regarding room placement and bass response are deceptive and don't really capture the reality of the situation, which is that below a certain frequency, typically around 300hz, bass response will be highly chaotic from position to position. Simply saying that moving the speaker 1/4 wavelength at 150hz fills in some response anomaly is not helpful, since if you were to move six inches in any direction the entire bass response will be different anyway. This is a fundamental limitation of stereo set ups, and the only way to deal with it is to use at least three bass sources and equalize them carefully.

2. That would be a reasonable guess. If you look at the directivity sonogram, the 700-1.2khz region is where the speaker is transitioning from largely omnidirectional to directional radiation. This is typically where you will see baffle artifacts. A centrally mounted driver will always magnify these effects, unless the corners are treated as in the LS50. The Q150 is definitely a lesser LS50 but I would take the R3 out of either any day of the week.

Have you owned both?

 

[envydd]

Thinking if I should pick one pair for a garage system for casual listening. I have r3 for my main room and ls50 for another.

Anyone compared these with either of the above. I understand that these are half the price at msrp. Also the 350s are selling at a discount now.

 

[trevor_bartram]

1. The recommendations given by KEF and other speaker companies regarding room placement and bass response are deceptive and don't really capture the reality of the situation, which is that below a certain frequency, typically around 300hz, bass response will be highly chaotic from position to position. Simply saying that moving the speaker 1/4 wavelength at 150hz fills in some response anomaly is not helpful, since if you were to move six inches in any direction the entire bass response will be different anyway. This is a fundamental limitation of stereo set ups, and the only way to deal with it is to use at least three bass sources and equalize them carefully.

2. That would be a reasonable guess. If you look at the directivity sonogram, the 700-1.2khz region is where the speaker is transitioning from largely omnidirectional to directional radiation. This is typically where you will see baffle artifacts. A centrally mounted driver will always magnify these effects, unless the corners are treated as in the LS50. The Q150 is definitely a lesser LS50 but I would take the R3 out of either any day of the week.

I took your criticism of my placement solution to the 150Hz 3dB boost of my Paradigm Studio 20 V2s to heart. I designed a 'Bridged T' electronic equalization network and inserted it between my pre & power amplifier to remove the bass boost. The reason I did this after 20 years of listening is, I have been listening to other speakers recently (upgraditis) and found I prefer the lean bass sound of the LS50 Metas and Debut 2.0 B6.2s over my Studio 20s. With the modification it's like listening to a brand new pair of speakers and the urge to upgrade is gone!

 

[radix]

Thinking if I should pick one pair for a garage system for casual listening. I have r3 for my main room and ls50 for another.

Anyone compared these with either of the above. I understand that these are half the price at msrp. Also the 350s are selling at a discount now.

You've likely looked at Amir's Q350 and R3 review. The Q350 is a bit rougher in the mids, but nothing too bad. In my HT setup, I use R3s LR and Q350 SL and SR. For a while, I used the Q350s are L and R before the R3s arrived. I think the Q350s sound very good. As rears, they have very good definition. The Q350s are a bit boomy next to a wall without stuffing the rear port (I don't know if this is any different than the R3, I've not tried comparing that).

As you seem to like the KEF line, I think you would be happy with the Q350.

Here is my in-room measurement of the R3 (front right) vs Q350 (rear right) on a Denon 6700 with Audyssey. I'm not sure if this will help or muddy the waters, but it's what measurements I have. They are in different locations and this is after apply Audyssey. So, if you have EQ, they come out pretty similar. What differences you see are very likely position differences.

 

[envydd]

You've likely looked at Amir's Q350 and R3 review. The Q350 is a bit rougher in the mids, but nothing too bad. In my HT setup, I use R3s LR and Q350 SL and SR. For a while, I used the Q350s are L and R before the R3s arrived. I think the Q350s sound very good. As rears, they have very good definition. The Q350s are a bit boomy next to a wall without stuffing the rear port (I don't know if this is any different than the R3, I've not tried comparing that).

As you seem to like the KEF line, I think you would be happy with the Q350.

Here is my in-room measurement of the R3 (front right) vs Q350 (rear right) on a Denon 6700 with Audyssey. I'm not sure if this will help or muddy the waters, but it's what measurements I have. They are in different locations and this is after apply Audyssey. So, if you have EQ, they come out pretty similar. What differences you see are very likely position differences.

View attachment 182073

Thank you for your experience. I do like the kef sound signature. The only speakers that have wowed me beyond the R3s are my friend’s B&W 805d3 which seemed brighter but also felt open and energetic.

I don’t have eq yet and I might delve into eq with mini dsp. For the garage system they will be against the wall and I will have to block the port if it’s too boomy.

 

[Sengin]

I'm heavily considering a pair of these as they are discounted right now and end up $200 below the DBR-62s, which was my top choice. They would be connected to a desktop, so I would be EQing these and have them pretty close - like 1m at max. I am also not looking to use a sub with these, so the low-frequency extension is perhaps more important for me than most people - the LFX on these at 38Hz technically beats out the DBR-62's 43Hz. Pierre's site says that these actually beat the DBR-62s in preference score after EQ (I mean, technically so at 6.4 vs 6.3...). However, I know that PS isn't an all-encompassing number. For what PS doesn't capture, considering both the Q350 and the DBR-62s are about the same size and both passive - would this be a good choice for my desk? Or would I regret not saving a bit more and spending the $200 for the DBR-62s?

DBR-62s got the high recommendation (while this got no recommendation), but from reading this thread it could be due to needing a more finicky EQ setting than could be discovered during the testing period or due to the shape of the listening room and how directivity is affected.

 

[Walter]

I'm heavily considering a pair of these as they are discounted right now and end up $200 below the DBR-62s, which was my top choice. They would be connected to a desktop, so I would be EQing these and have them pretty close - like 1m at max. I am also not looking to use a sub with these, so the low-frequency extension is perhaps more important for me than most people - the LFX on these at 38Hz technically beats out the DBR-62's 43Hz. Pierre's site says that these actually beat the DBR-62s in preference score after EQ (I mean, technically so at 6.4 vs 6.3...). However, I know that PS isn't an all-encompassing number. For what PS doesn't capture, considering both the Q350 and the DBR-62s are about the same size and both passive - would this be a good choice for my desk? Or would I regret not saving a bit more and spending the $200 for the DBR-62s?

DBR-62s got the high recommendation (while this got no recommendation), but from reading this thread it could be due to needing a more finicky EQ setting than could be discovered during the testing period or due to the shape of the listening room and how directivity is affected.

I can't commemt on the relative merits of the two speakers, but preference score is not very relevant for nearfield use, although a drastic difference of 3 or 4 points probably indicates the lower scoring speaker has significant problems in any use case. Also, scores within about 1 point of each other mean that the two are pretty evenly preferred. A tenth of a point difference is totally irrelevant.

 

[Descartes]

I listened to the KEF Q350, Q750 & Q950 today at Visions and was quite impressed! Also listened to the Polk Signature Elite S20 and it also sounded quite good, it's the upgrade to the model that received a good review from Amir.

Which one did you like best

 

[AlexanderM]

Which one did you like best

I would have to say the Q950's, but they are the most expensive of that line. Funny thing, I listened to them in the Abbotsford store and didn't like them, they sounded muddy, then I listened to them in the Surrey store and they sounded great. I talked to the salesman about this and he said it was all about the setup, and they had to change out the receiver they were using to make their speakers sound good, they had gone to a Denon but I couldn't read the model as I didn't have my glasses.

 

[AntGom]

I would have to say the Q950's, but they are the most expensive of that line. Funny thing, I listened to them in the Abbotsford store and didn't like them, they sounded muddy, then I listened to them in the Surrey store and they sounded great. I talked to the salesman about this and he said it was all about the setup, and they had to change out the receiver they were using to make their speakers sound good, they had gone to a Denon but I couldn't read the model as I didn't have my glasses.

The Denon amp was AVR or Stereo amplifier?

 

[Sengin]

I can't commemt on the relative merits of the two speakers, but preference score is not very relevant for nearfield use, although a drastic difference of 3 or 4 points probably indicates the lower scoring speaker has significant problems in any use case. Also, scores within about 1 point of each other mean that the two are pretty evenly preferred. A tenth of a point difference is totally irrelevant.

Oh yeah, I figured the tenth of a point hardly mattered. Is there more I can read about preference score and nearfield use? I would imagine anything in this PS range would be "basically equivalent sound quality after EQ".

I'm actually thinking that because these would be so close to me that they'd be better with their coaxial design over the DBR-62s - am I off base in that thinking?