Low volume listening: Klipsch RP600M ii vs Kef Q150/350

[mrmojo]

Which of these speakers would be better for low volume listening in an apartment:

Klipsch RP600M ii or Kef Q150/350?

I bought the Polk R200, and the advice about them was correct: they sound good at high volumes, but don't sound great at low volume apartment listening.

I've heard that klipsch speakers sound good at low volume, so am considering replacing the polk r200's with the Klipsch RP600M ii. Also, potentially the Kef Q150/350? Don't know what these sound like at low volumes though.

Am also considering getting a yamaha as 501 amp with the loudness feature to maybe see if that improves the R200 at low volume.

 

[staticV3]

I've heard that klipsch speakers sound good at low volume, so am considering replacing the polk r200's with the Klipsch RP600M ii

Only because Klipsch tend to boost the treble response of their speakers and that happens to complement the equal loudness curves at lower volumes.

It's a technical flaw with a niché, unintended advantage.

A vastly superior approach is to add proper equal loudness compensation to your system
Then you can enjoy great low volume listening regardless of the speaker, without compromising playback at normal or loud volumes.

 

[mrmojo]

Only because Klipsch tend to boost the treble response of their speakers and that happens to complement the equal loudness curves at lower volumes.

It's a technical flaw with a niché, unintended advantage.

A vastly superior approach is to add proper equal loudness compensation to your system
Then you can enjoy great low volume listening regardless of the speaker, without compromising playback at normal or loud volumes.

A vastly superior approach is to add proper equal loudness compensation to your system
Then you can enjoy great low volume listening regardless of the speaker, without compromising playback at normal or loud volumes.

----------------->Is this what the loudness feature on the yamaha amp does?

What Does the Loudness Knob on Yamaha Amplifier Do? And When To Use It? - TechWalls

Yamaha offers a range of features in their amplifiers to cater to the different listening needs of their customers. One such feature that often sparks interest is the "Loudness" control.

www.techwalls.com

 

[DVDdoug]

Speakers are linear (unless overdriven) so their frequency response doesn't change with volume. But your perception does.

 

[staticV3]

A vastly superior approach is to add proper equal loudness compensation to your system
Then you can enjoy great low volume listening regardless of the speaker, without compromising playback at normal or loud volumes.

----------------->Is this what the loudness feature on the yamaha amp does?

In a nutshell, the Yamaha's Loudness knob will add bass and treble to compensate for equal loudness contours.

Though I'm not aware if the amount of compensation actually adapts to the volume or if Yamaha expects you to turn both the Loudness knob and Volume knob when adjusting volume.

Though that can be easily confirmed at home using your phone and Room EQ Wizard.

 

[Heat11]

we need a review of this klipsch speaker, amirs eq adjustment was a huge bonus for the previous model, not sure if it still applies.

 

[Oso Polar]

A vastly superior approach is to add proper equal loudness compensation to your system
Then you can enjoy great low volume listening regardless of the speaker, without compromising playback at normal or loud volumes.

Audyssey does wonders with this.

 

[Chrispy]

Where did you get the idea this matters at all?

 

[Torin Krell]

I haven't compared them with the Klipsch RP600Miis however I enjoy listening to a pair of KEF Q150s at low volumes on one of my secondary systems. According to the manufacturer specs it actually has a lower rolloff than its bigger more expensive brother the KEF Q350. The KEFQ150's smoother response may also work better at low volumes where some response irregularities become more noticeable. The Q150 although not as bright as the RP600Mii still offers a clear high end, even off axis.

 

[staticV3]

According to the manufacturer specs it actually has a lower rolloff than its bigger more expensive brother the KEF Q350

The Q150 (solid gray line) has higher port tuning and more treble:

Source

 

[Oddball]

Well, truth to be told, both of the speakers are not great. Klipsch are probably worse all things taken into consideration.

Loudness is also a function of what it does. I don't really use DEQ even though that is probably the best of them. It tends to do whatever it wants, which is not really what I want. Their compensation curve just does not work for me.

The only sensible solution is actually to calibrate your system for various listening levels, including the low level. You get what your want and not the ribs and bones when your only ordered the steak.

 

[Monster]

For what it's worth, I have a pair of Mission QX2s which, subjectively, I find very nice at low volumes.

 

[A Surfer]

Or just move so that you can listen at whatever volume you want. And if that requires getting divorced, give it some serious consideration.

 

[Oddball]

Or just move so that you can listen at whatever volume you want. And if that requires getting divorced, give it some serious consideration.

Our hobby is just a part of our lives, hopefully not requiring such drastic decisions. I would definitively not call it a deal breaker.

 

[sceptical1]

Sounds good at low volume means more bass, right? Why not put the speakers in the corner? Otherwise, a ported speaker with an underdamped tuning sounds good at low volumes.

 

[Oddball]

Sounds good at low volume means more bass, right? Why not put the speakers in the corner? Otherwise, a ported speaker with an underdamped tuning sounds good at low volumes.

It really depends on your room and preferences. So there is no generally why to do on why not.

It's more of how much corner load "gains" and how much is wanted. Corner position does not generally work well with decay though which is important part of the overall speaker response.

 

[JRowland]

I have the RP600m in my bedroom for low level going to sleep mostly listening. I have KEF R7 R6 meta in my basement and had Q150’s as surrounds. I switched to Q350’s back there and prefer them. I tried them all upstairs, powered by a Fosi BT20a Pro.

In 2 channel I really like the Klipsch, it has some sparkle which is enjoyable. I run them through a Qudelix 5k running peq from the Spinorama site and I like it better than stock that way. Folks say eq’d they sound similar to the ii out of the box but I’ve never heard the ii. Q150 is a little hot for me in the treble, 350 much better and the bass has more “body”. Sorry for subjective but that’s all I can offer. I can’t get the Q150 to cross at 40hz in my basement using a Denon x4800 and Audyssey, with the Q350 it allows that as did the rp600. They (Klipsch) stood out like a sore thumb as surrounds compared to the fronts, the sound is that different to me. The overall deep bass, sub bass, whatever the good stuff is called from any of the 3 is not there. Which is perfect for not disturbing neigbors. The Klipsch has nice bass otherwise in my room as does the Q350, all of these are/were 9 inches from a wall behind the rear ports. The Q150 doesn’t float my boat in the mid bass like the other two, yeah, well, you know, that’s, just, like, your(my) opinion, man Thin, another bullshit descriptor but what comes to mind. More sparkle but the Klipsch does that better, 350 is Goldilocks for me out of the 3 if I had to pick one.

Editing to try and add some substance to the “sparkle”

Q150

Q350 same room same spot

RP600m long since deleted.

 

[Torin Krell]

The Q150 (solid gray line) has higher port tuning and more treble:
View attachment 464294
Source

Thanks for the test info staticV3! Its amusing that KEF could make such a mistake of apparently interchanging the bass rolloff frequency of the Q150 and Q350 on their spec sheet.

 

[staticV3]

Thanks for the test info staticV3! Its amusing that KEF could make such a mistake of apparently interchanging the bass rolloff frequency of the Q150 and Q350 on their spec sheet.

There's no mistake on KEF's part, it's just that the way ±3dB frequency response is defined unfortunately makes the Q350 appear to drop sooner although in reality, it extends deeper (as becomes clear from the -6dB spec).

You can see how, here: https://www.spinorama.org/compare.h...r1=KEF+Q350&origin1=ASR&version1=asr-vertical

This is old news though: frequency response specs in the form of "x Hz - x Hz" have always been flawed, misleading.

Always look at the actual data if available.

 

[Torin Krell]

There's no mistake on KEF's part, it's just that the way ±3dB frequency response is defined unfortunately makes the Q350 appear to drop sooner although in reality, it extends deeper (as becomes clear from the -6dB spec).

You can see how, here: https://www.spinorama.org/compare.h...r1=KEF+Q350&origin1=ASR&version1=asr-vertical

This is old news though: frequency response specs in the form of "x Hz - x Hz" have always been flawed, misleading.

Always look at the actual data if available.

Since spec sheets are a form of advertising as well as hopefully a way to accurately describe product performance I still feel that KEF dropped the ball on how it presented these two speakers. Perhaps they should have listed + - 6db as well. Several people I know were confused by the specs and would have purchased the Q350 instead of the Q150 if the bass performance was more thoroughly and clearly portrayed by KEF. People shopping for speakers in this price bracket are not always eager to do a search for graphs, spinoramas or scientifically conducted reviews - ie the majority of people out there are not like us!