KEF R11 vs. Q900 Blind test can’t tell difference! HELP

[12Many]

Probably mentioned, but what is the source and amp? Maybe the signal going into the speakers is not so great and speakers are both reproducing a not so great signal. Even so, surprised there is not a difference in sound.

 

[exm]

Maybe try the reference series, see what its the '' top performance ''

But blind test, can eliminate the '' wow factor '' ..., dimishing return hit so hard when it's blind test.

I have tested the R11-R900-Reference 5, although side by side I did R11-R900 (R900 wins) and Reference 5-R900 (Reference wins).

To me, the R900 sounds very similar to the R11 but with much better LF in the 60-100Hz range. Very noticeable. The Reference 5 sounds very similar to the R900 LF-wise (smaller but better drivers. I can post pics of both LF drivers if anyone is interested), but the Reference really shine in opening up the room, having vocals really surround you. They are absolutely fantastic but not worth the premium (I bought mine used - got an absolute steal on them since 2 of the drivers had a dent).

 

[Travis]

More difficult is to explain why, knowing diminishing returns, one still spends thousands more than "needed". I've done that and I cannot put it into words really, maybe something like wanting to get rid the upgrade itch (doesn't work that well btw).

I think the answer to that is simple. The “test” that @seanhyatt did was to determine if a different speaker was worth it to him (and possibly his wife, but she may have been an added control) by a blind, controlled experiment. It’s limited to him, his room, his disposable income, his cost/benefit analysis, his music/test tracks, and most importantly, his ability to perceive a difference, and if so, what that difference means to him.

Speakers are an entirely different can of worms than a 10K DAC vs a $400 one where science/measurements can show there is no perceivable benefit to more money on a DAC. I agree, the reviews on equipment here (amps,
Preamps, speaker wire, DACs, power cords and all the rest) show not only diminishing returns, but that more money can actually get you less.

With speakers the science isn’t that advanced, and probably will never be , near term, to that same point. There are just too many variables that can never be controlled for, especially individual preference. What do we know from all of the papers, studies and tests? Flat frequency response, and controlled directivity will be preferred, to a high degree of confidence and there is an emerging and developing preference score. (that’s an oversimplification, but not by much. There is still disagreement as to other factors (distortion for example). There is no way to take two speakers that meet the measurement criteria for what is preferred, and put them in any individuals room, with their music, with their budget, with their individual taste (and their wife/partner) and say “you will hear no difference, you will have no preference” thus any price difference is a waste of money.

 

[seanhyatt]

I think the answer to that is simple. The “test” that @seanhyatt did was to determine if a different speaker was worth it to him (and possibly his wife, but she may have been an added control) by a blind, controlled experiment. It’s limited to him, his room, his disposable income, his cost/benefit analysis, his music/test tracks, and most importantly, his ability to perceive a difference, and if so, what that difference means to him.

Speakers are an entirely different can of worms than a 10K DAC vs a $400 one where science/measurements can show there is no perceivable benefit to more money on a DAC. I agree, the reviews on equipment here (amps,
Preamps, speaker wire, DACs, power cords and all the rest) show not only diminishing returns, but that more money can actually get you less.

With speakers the science isn’t that advanced, and probably will never be , near term, to that same point. There are just too many variables that can never be controlled for, especially individual preference. What do we know from all of the papers, studies and tests? Flat frequency response, and controlled directivity will be preferred, to a high degree of confidence and there is an emerging and developing preference score. (that’s an oversimplification, but not by much. There is still disagreement as to other factors (distortion for example). There is no way to take two speakers that meet the measurement criteria for what is preferred, and put them in any individuals room, with their music, with their budget, with their individual taste (and their wife/partner) and say “you will hear no difference, you will have no preference” thus any price difference is a waste of money.

well said

 

[thewas]

There is still disagreement as to other factors (distortion for example).

Like for audio electronics there are limits for different types for distortions under which they become inaudible, people often just disagree on those limits.

There is no way to take two speakers that meet the measurement criteria for what is preferred, and put them in any individuals room, with their music, with their budget, with their individual taste (and their wife/partner) and say “you will hear no difference, you will have no preference” thus any price difference is a waste of money.

But this just happened here? Of course it is rather rare to find two different loudspeakers with very similar directivities, as distortions can be inaudible enough at reasonable listening levels and direct sound could be even equalised to be extremely similar. (in near anechoic conditions like outside even the directivity importance diminishes).

 

[Travis]

Like for audio electronics there are limits for different types for distortions under which they become inaudible, people often just disagree on those limits.

We were talking about speakers, not audio electronics. There is vast disagreement in the studies of speaker preference as to what significance, if any, distortion plays. It is in fact right in the AES description of that particular sub-committee.

But this just happened here? Of course it is rather rare to find two different loudspeakers with very similar directivities, as distortions can be inaudible enough at reasonable listening levels and direct sound could be even equalised to be extremely similar. (in near anechoic conditions like outside even the directivity importance diminishes).

No it didn't happen here. I wasn't very clear in that sentence. What I meant was that you can not, currently, by looking at two pairs of speakers that meet the preference criteria (Toole, Olive, et al) and say that those two speakers will sound identical in someone's room, with their music with their budget, with their individual taste (and their wife/partner) and say “you will hear no difference, you will have no preference” thus any price difference is a waste of money" like you can with measurements on a DAC, power cords, amplification, etc. The full quote, and the preceding paragraph which gives it context I have put down below.

I wasn't talking about listening to speakers outside, or eq'ing two pairs of speakers to be "extremely similar." Simply saying, if you have two pairs of speakers that meet the preference criteria we have to date, you cannot reliably say "there won't be a dimes worth of difference between the two of those in your room, with your music" etc. That's what the current science says, not me. (Heyser, Olive and others). However, you can look at the measurements of other audio devices and have enough information to reliably say that there will be no audible difference.

It just simply this, there is a difference between looking at measurements of audio equipment and what you would expect the change in sound to be (if anything) and speakers. That's all.

Travis

"Speakers are an entirely different can of worms than a 10K DAC vs a $400 one where science/measurements can show there is no perceivable benefit to more money on a DAC. I agree, the reviews on equipment here (amps, Preamps, speaker wire, DACs, power cords and all the rest) show not only diminishing returns, but that more money can actually get you less.

With speakers the science isn’t that advanced, and probably will never be , near term, to that same point. There are just too many variables that can never be controlled for, especially individual preference. What do we know from all of the papers, studies and tests? Flat frequency response, and controlled directivity will be preferred, to a high degree of confidence and there is an emerging and developing preference score. (that’s an oversimplification, but not by much. There is still disagreement as to other factors (distortion for example). There is no way to take two speakers that meet the measurement criteria for what is preferred, and put them in any individuals room, with their music, with their budget, with their individual taste (and their wife/partner) and say “you will hear no difference, you will have no preference” thus any price difference is a waste of money."

 

[thewas]

We were talking about speakers, not audio electronics. There is vast disagreement in the studies of speaker preference as to what significance, if any, distortion plays. It is in fact right in the AES description of that particular sub-committee.

That is not what I said but that there are some limits under which distortions are inaudible.

What I meant was that you can not, currently, by looking at two pairs of speakers that meet the preference criteria (Toole, Olive, et al) and say that those two speakers will sound identical in someone's room, with their music with their budget, with their individual taste (and their wife/partner) and say “you will hear no difference, you will have no preference” thus any price difference is a waste of money" like you can with measurements on a DAC, power cords, amplification, etc.

Depends what you mean with preference criteria, if you just boil it down to a single metric like Harman score I agree that it is not enough to tell they will sound the same, not to tell which one will preferred individually. But if the on-axis responses (irrespectively if native or post EQ) and directivities are similar and distortions are low than they will sound very similar which might have been the case here.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Each sub is in the 4 corners of the room. They are bundles 2x each. 2x front 2x back. Each set of two is equal distance from each other.

Not quite sure what you mean by bundles of two and at the same time in the 4 corners?

Anyway if they are all in individual corners and the bass level is not enough you could stack them in sets of 2.

One stack of two in front and one in rear. By stacking them(or sitting them side by side) you end up with essentially two larger subs vs 4 smaller ones. The sound fields combine more in terms of total output.

You get a little less leveling of the peaks and nulls but probabily not that much less and you should get higher overall output.

I have tried them straight but I find the center imaging suffers. I am happy with both the Q900 and R11 soundstage width.

I have found this with all of my KEF speakers. I like toe in general and with my KEF uniq products so far they have not had a very wide sweet spot. When listening side by side with my GF they collapse to the near speaker fairly strongly, more than the better examples of not doing this.

Depends what you mean with preference criteria, if you just boil it down to a single metric like Harman score I agree that it is not enough to tell they will sound the same, not to tell which one will preferred individually. But if the on-axis responses (irrespectively if native or post EQ) and directivities are similar and distortions are low than they will sound very similar which might have been the case here.

To my ears so far it does not sound thousands of dollars better. Diminishing returns.

That Harman Score is never going away despite both Toole and Olive poo-pooing it being used the way it is here. I admit I still look at it, hard not to. Like a pretty sunset. Totally can see why the Q900 and R11 sound similar.
I think the Q150 and LS50meta sound similar. Not the same but similar enough. Maybe a 10-15% increase in 'quality' factor, for me going up to the LS50meta. Notable but for a large price increase.
I think the Revel M126be is maybe 25% 'better' than the M16 @ $4400 vs $900 retail. Notable again but not necessary for most as the M16 is already very nice sounding.

I would pay for these things as this is fun for me. I almost always recommend top inexpensive speakers to other people.

I think if the R11 won vs the Q900 something like 60-65% of the time vs 35-40% out of a hundred it would be very significant. I think a lot of folks want the new speaker to be some 100% super obvious thing but that only works if the 1st speaker was pretty shytty. Again it may not even get that 60-65% but that would be my baseline for reasonable success going from a $1500-6000 retail product. These days $1500 just buys a lot.

With in the same manufacturer and design strategy I'd expect to pay significantly more once the product already sounds good. It just takes a lot more to squeeze the juice out and you simply have to figure out what price won't completely cannibalize the sales of your other lines.
Especially with very reputable manufacturers and good engineering -----> they are good at what they do so even the budget line is well engineered. Up the scale you are paying a lot for build quality and usually increased looks which cost but affect the sound very little if at all. (well maybe sighted they affect it alot for some)

I mentioned this earlier and it is just my little personal fantasy, but after all you have done here you are ripe to try a different brand and house sound despite not exactly wanting to. Borrow a pair of Revel F208's or a Pair of the JBL HDI-xxx towers. Or you mentioned getting a deal, the REVEL F206's are $1010 each B-stock. https://www.musicdirect.com/equipment/speakers/revel-f206-tower-speakers-walnut-pair-b-stock/
Those have 2 less 6.5" drivers per side but with your subs and a 40hrz or 50hrz high pass you'll be good.
Totally get you are not doing this but I really would want to hear what you think of any of these.

I really do see why KEF is popular and yet honestly I prefer some other stuff alot more when it comes down to listening for enjoyment and 'not being able to stop.'

You could also get real weird and go for the new Philharmonic Audio Purifi based towers or the regular ones. https://philharmonicaudio.com/

 

[Travis]

That is not what I said but that there are some limits under which distortions are inaudible.


Depends what you mean with preference criteria, if you just boil it down to a single metric like Harman score I agree that it is not enough to tell they will sound the same, not to tell which one will preferred individually. But if the on-axis responses (irrespectively if native or post EQ) and directivities are similar and distortions are low then they will sound very similar which might have been the case here.

Something is getting lost in translation perhaps?

It’s what the studies and science say on preference criteria. They speak for themselves, and it’s related all through the thread. You can argue yourself in circles on this one if you wish.

 

[thewas]

Something is getting lost in translation perhaps?

It seems so as I don't see anything incorrect in what I wrote nor arguing in circles, if you do you have to concretize it.

 

[Budgetjack]

Did you try listening in mono

 

[seanhyatt]

No I have not. I suspect that may show a bigger difference.

I did decide to keep the R11. The main reason was that they can play much louder without distorting and the other speakers in my Atmos system are all KEF. The Q900 midrange severely distorts at loud levels.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

No I have not. I suspect that may show a bigger difference.

I did decide to keep the R11. The main reason was that they can play much louder without distorting and the other speakers in my Atmos system are all KEF. The Q900 midrange severely distorts at loud levels.

if you can, do it..
it will be fun to try only 1 speaker, it makes the difference more obvious and easy to find.

 

[seanhyatt]

if you can, do it..
it will be fun to try only 1 speaker, it makes the difference more obvious and easy to find.

For another reason other than sound quality I had to send the R11 speakers back to KEF and should have new ones soon.

 

[Astrozombie]

Fascinating stuff, I remember people saying they preferred the Q100s to the 300s for having less boomy bass and if you were using a subwoofer you didn't really need to spend double the money (when the 100/150 are on sale) but I would not expect the Rs to be a marginal improvement. Once I read some guy talking about the JBL 530s mentioning that he had heard the SVS Ultra BS and they were only slightly better for 4X the price (when the JBL is on sale also)

 

[tw 2022]

Fascinating stuff, I remember people saying they preferred the Q100s to the 300s for having less boomy bass and if you were using a subwoofer you didn't really need to spend double the money (when the 100/150 are on sale) but I would not expect the Rs to be a marginal improvement. Once I read some guy talking about the JBL 530s mentioning that he had heard the SVS Ultra BS and they were only slightly better for 4X the price (when the JBL is on sale also)

the jbl 530s do some things very well .. they have very few standout flaws, there are plenty of more expensive speakers that aren't clearly better

 

[kefferson]

Bringing this thread back from the dead for good reason. This thread should be stickied on every Audio forum. The fact is that diminishing returns is forever an underappreciated concept in the world of men's nerdy passions, from speakers to cars to watches.

The fact that a ten year old pair of speakers is generally indistinguishable from speakers that costs multiples more is a breath of honesty in this hobby. You're not crazy, the truth will set you free!

*I too have a pair of 10 year old Q900's and despite auditioning newer, more expensive speakers over the years I found myself (somewhat frustratingly) unable to convince myself to part with them. Once this point of diminishing returns is reached, the next steps aren't the speakers - it's surround sound, subwoofers, acoustics of the room and a new hobby to obsess over.

 

[steve59]

kefferson, Thanks for your observations. I hear you. 1st world problems for sure. ​

 

[maty]

*I too have a pair of 10 year old Q900's and despite auditioning newer, more expensive speakers over the years I found myself (somewhat frustratingly) unable to convince myself to part with them..

It is time to DIY. Crossover components (first order -> very few components) and cushioning material on inside. And.. My modded KEF Q100 sound much better than originals.

https://www.avsforum.com/threads/kef-owners-thread.724103/page-390

 

[mk05]

For another reason other than sound quality I had to send the R11 speakers back to KEF and should have new ones soon.

Hello - did you receive the replacement pair? If so, did it change your experience?

After days of listening the R11 seemed to sound similar to the Q900...Both speakers sounded nearly the same to me

...I have an ATMOS setup with all 7.4.4 with KEF speakers...

... Denon X3600 internal eq. For the test I used Audyssey EQ.

Also, are you solely listening to these speakers from the Denon HT receiver?