Ket Q7 meta and Super Linton questions

[FBech]

Hello, I am finally deciding basically between the Wharfedale Super Linton and the KEF Q7 Meta or maybe Q11. My room is about 22 m².

I’ve been watching Erin’s Audio Corner reviews. I need speakers that I can place 30 cm from the wall, and these two seem to check this box according to Erin.
He is saying that the Q11 is designed to be used at this distance. Would it be the same for the Q7?

He also says that in order to avoid the dark character that some people describe, you need about 2 meters of space between the speakers and the side walls. Would it be the same for the Q7?

On one side, there's a regular wall at a distance of two meters, but on the other side, there's a bit more space, along with a spiral staircase that leads to an upper floor. It’s a duplex. Would that be a problem?

 

[kyuu]

30cm (~1 ft.) is not that close to the wall. In general, placing the speaker as close to the wall as possible is preferable as it minimizes SBIR problems and you get more reinforcement in the bass. This can also exacerbate room mode issues, but you should really have some form of EQ and/or room correction software to address that regardless.

 

[FBech]

Would It be the same for the Q7?

 

[staticV3]

He is saying that the Q11 is designed to be used at this distance. Would it be the same for the Q7?

Yes.

He also says that in order to avoid the dark character that some people describe, you need about 2 meters of space between the speakers and the side walls. Would it be the same for the Q7?

Yes.

On one side, there's a regular wall at a distance of two meters, but on the other side, there's a bit more space, along with a spiral staircase that leads to an upper floor. It’s a duplex. Would that be a problem?

No.

 

[voodooless]

Q11 meta owner here. They should be fine with 30cm from the wall or less. I also have one close sidewall, and on the other side it’s far away. It’s just what it is… Audyssey will just have to deal with it (or Dirac, once I get a license on a discount).

As for darker character, I’m using some EQ to compensate for that. Easy fix. They are linear enough to make them sound any way you like, really.

The Lintons should also be an excellent speaker. Obviously the look is totally different. If that matters to you, definitely take that into account.

 

[FBech]

Ok, thanks a lot. Maybe the Q11 is a bit too big for my 22m² room, that's why I was looking at the Q7. What do you think?

I am starting to learn to look at measurements, and until now I have been reading WhatHiFi and Stereonet reviews. I know these are considered to be not very reliable on this forum, as they tend to focus on personal perceptions and don't always prioritize a neutral response. Is that the case?

There are Q7 measurements in Spinorama as well, which I didn't know when I posted this question. They show a different bass response compared to the Q11. The Q7 seems to have more bass in the same frequency range that Eric was talking about, regarding close-to-wall design. The Super Linton is similar to the Q11 in this regard. So, it may be the case that the Q7 is not as much of a close-to-wall design as the Q11, is that correct?

 

[ZolaIII]

None of home/HiFi speakers on the market is designed for close to wall behind them placement. Some will do it better and play along better in such conditions (port design that are not rare or close buffle compression ones, cardioid ones...). Both mentioned have port on the back.
Perhaps Polk R700 instead and still with limited accustic treatment behind them?

 

[kyuu]

Maybe the Q11 is a bit too big for my 22m² room, that's why I was looking at the Q7. What do you think?

There's really no such thing as too big for your room, unless you just don't like it for aesthetics reasons (or you're going to be sitting very close them).

I am starting to learn to look at measurements, and until now I have been reading WhatHiFi and Stereonet reviews. I know these are considered to be not very reliable on this forum, as they tend to focus on personal perceptions and don't always prioritize a neutral response. Is that the case?

Yes their reviews should be taken as entertainment pieces, at best. They are not good for learning anything useful.

So, it may be the case that the Q7 is not as much of a close-to-wall design as the Q11, is that correct?

I'm unclear how you came to this conclusion.

Not just the bass region, but the entire frequency range is very, very similar between the two speakers. Neither is better or worse for near-wall placement. The only way a speaker is typically designed to be more amenable for near-wall placement is when a so-called "bass shelf" is implemented, as seen here on the R3 Meta:

However, assuming you are going to be using some sort of EQ or room correction software it's really not important. The EQ/room correction will tame the bass peak(s).

 

[Arindal]

Maybe the Q11 is a bit too big for my 22m² room, that's why I was looking at the Q7. What do you think?

´Too big´ I would not consider a problem, but ´too bass-heavy´, ´too boomy´ or too dominant in the bass and lower mids might be a huge problem in a 22 sqm room. I would strongly recommend to try any speaker producing meaningful bass in such a small room prior to buying. Room modes and placement close to the walls might lead to a disaster in terms of boomy and uncorrectable bass, but you never know before you have tried.

The EQ/room correction will tame the bass peak(s).

In a 22sqm room, with one or more room modes being fully excited close to their pressure maximum, there is nothing to tame with EQ. If you are unlucky with geometry and placement, it will always sound boomy and inconsistent no matter the EQ.

None of home/HiFi speakers on the market is designed for close to wall behind them placement. Some will do it better and play along better in such conditions

I would not say ´none´, because there are home speakers which are meant to be placed close to a wall, and in same cases this might work well. Particularly with closed-box or cardioid designs offering a rather lean and tight bass (ATC, Kii, Q Acoustics, some vintage Naims, MEG, bookshelf Magico, some LS3/x derivates, such might work). Nothing that is commonly found in mass-market tower speakers, particularly not in those with massive or dominant bass.

 

[ZolaIII]

@Arindal by that I meant to emphasise importance of back to front refractions ratio to ISO 3382-2. It's not very small room either and if he does placement and orientation right (which I fear won't be the case and didn't want to ask for same reason) to 5 m length room fundamental will be below what even R700 output directly and can be useful utilised a little bit. You can make it sound to how it should without it to listening position or smaller area and only place it concels it self is straight near field (100 and cuple cm sub direct in front of you). Actually there is no use even trying to EQ until you remove it with single hand tailored PEQ. Its all art of making compromises and things you can to work for you or at least not against you and you can have bottom two octaves (doing great in every domain) in a small room, it just takes more effort to get there.

 

[voodooless]

Room modes and placement close to the walls might lead to a disaster in terms of boomy and uncorrectable bass, but you never know before you have tried.

Luckily many KEF speakers have a shelving bass response, that actually fits well with the boundary enforcement of close to wall placement. These Q series towers are no exception.

Having said that, without room correction my Q11s are still a bit bass heavy, but mileage may vary depending on room and placement. After correction, I had to add in some bass again with a house curve (sprinkle some salt to taste).

Another advantage of the low shelve is that it extends pretty far down. Sound wise, the 7 and 11 sound be really similar. The 11 may have a bit lower distortion due to the additional driver, and/or may be able to play a bit louder (not that I need that). I just think it looks cooler, too

Having had an R500 a while back, it’s a bit hard to compare, but in my recollection, the Q11 meta is a better speaker than the older R500 (except maybe the looks). I thought to mention it because the OP mentioned it as a second hand option elsewhere.

 

[kyuu]

In a 22sqm room, with one or more room modes being fully excited close to their pressure maximum, there is nothing to tame with EQ. If you are unlucky with geometry and placement, it will always sound boomy and inconsistent no matter the EQ.

I really don't know what you're claiming here, unless it's that somehow there can be bass peaks too high to be brought down with EQ. That seems like a weird claim, however.

 

[delta76]

Ok, thanks a lot. Maybe the Q11 is a bit too big for my 22m² room, that's why I was looking at the Q7. What do you think?

I am starting to learn to look at measurements, and until now I have been reading WhatHiFi and Stereonet reviews. I know these are considered to be not very reliable on this forum, as they tend to focus on personal perceptions and don't always prioritize a neutral response. Is that the case?

There are Q7 measurements in Spinorama as well, which I didn't know when I posted this question. They show a different bass response compared to the Q11. The Q7 seems to have more bass in the same frequency range that Eric was talking about, regarding close-to-wall design. The Super Linton is similar to the Q11 in this regard. So, it may be the case that the Q7 is not as much of a close-to-wall design as the Q11, is that correct?

22m2 is not small, and bigger speakers are generally both more sensitive and have more headroom to play louder or more easily reach same loudness. The only actual problem is if you have the space.
with that said Q11 and Q7 are not that different in both size and maximum output. If you have sub(s) then they are basically the same

 

[Arindal]

it's that somehow there can be bass peaks too high to be brought down with EQ.

I don´t necessarily mean too high, but audibly long decay, coming in with cancellation issues in neighboring bands, and being not proportionally exciting depending on impulse duration and SPL.

Even if you manage to correct the response for a measurement using a sine sweep at a particular SPL, it does not mean that it will lead to tight bass reproduction and balanced bass tonality with any music.

 

[ZolaIII]

I don´t necessarily mean too high, but audibly long decay, coming in with cancellation issues in neighboring bands, and being not proportionally exciting depending on impulse duration and SPL.

Even if you manage to correct the response for a measurement using a sine sweep at a particular SPL, it does not mean that it will lead to tight bass reproduction and balanced bass tonality with any music.

Careful what you are saying there. Bass is alive thing to psy how we hear it to SPL. You can get there in 2.2 to ISO 226 2003 to as low as calm speach SPL program level, for 226 2023 you will need 9m long room, serious speakers and careful use of room fundamental to partially compensate for time delay (amplitude increase in ELC curve) in sub bass.
You do measurement so that room moods are well present (uper 70's to low 80's just before it goes crazy), in the spectral view (REW) you hit it regarding Q shape as best as you can and then try to it and adjust gain to measurements. Goal ain't to kill it entirely in spectral view but make it similar to surrounding small ones (your room). Then you recheck and adjust to full calibration point SPL (85/88 dB) no ELC needed natural in room response when it passes that without much difference with ELC it will pass everything.
You can't get there with accustic isolation and tailored bass trap even so good and both would be huge to get the job done.

 

[FBech]

Thanks for the answers. Currently, I have a Technics SL-1500, a Technics SAC600 amp, and Diamond 12.3 speakers. I am upgrading the system, starting with the speakers. I need to place them at 30 cm or less from the wall, so I think the Wharfedale Super Linton and KEF Q7/11 are viable options, as the reviews here are excellent, and Eric mentions that both the Q11 and Super Linton perform better at 30 cm from the wall.

The Diamonds are fine, but with some records, the bass gets a bit boomy. That's my main concern; I'm looking for something that won't have that resonance issue at 30 cm from the wall. Also, I don’t have a fixed listening position, so I’m looking for speakers with good horizontal and vertical dispersion, if possible.

Regarding the rest of the system, I was thinking of upgrading to an Arcam A15+ amp, an Arcam CD 5 and a Wimm Ultra. I've seen good reviews of the Arcam, but there aren’t any measurements available. What do you think about Arcam A15+?

As for EQ, I don't have experience. Can I use the Wimm Ultra’s EQ with the Arcam, or would it be better to look for an integrated amp with EQ?

 

[kyuu]

As for EQ, I don't have experience. Can I use the Wimm Ultra’s EQ with the Arcam, or would it be better to look for an integrated amp with EQ?

You can indeed use the Wiim's included EQ and/or room correction.

 

[FBech]

How is the vertical dispersion of the Super Linton?

 

[staticV3]

How is the vertical dispersion of the Super Linton?

See here: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/wharfedale_super_linton/

 

[FBech]

See here: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/wharfedale_super_linton/

Thanks, I am still learning to read measurements, Is it a good one, or is it narrow?