Mixing Klipsch with Kef?

[Dan1210]

Hey, I'm hoping I can get some advice on a potential speaker swap for my home cinema. Currently I am running a full Klipsch Thx ultra 2 set, recently I swapped the 4 atmos speakers over to the Kef ci200rr Thx which got me thinking about swapping the whole surround layer to the Kef product. I then picked up some
Kef ci3160rl and mocked up a baffle to try them out, when placed in the side surround postion the Kef seemed to draw attention to themselves unlike the Klipsch ks 525 bipole surround I have been using for the past 5 years. While using the Arc quick measure feature on my Anthem Avm70 I noticed how much sooner the Klipsch roll off compared to the Kef, is the ks 525 a bad speaker [in reference to frequency response] and would the flatter kef be more desireable? I don't really want to change the lcr which is currently the Klipch kl-650 thx as these throw a huge soundstage not something I think the kef could match without moving up to their dominus product.
Ultimately this comes down to 'timbre' matching with the lcr, the Kef do sound different and because the new speakers would need some re-modelling with my columns I want to be sure I make the right decison. I will add in some pics to hopefully give a better understanding of this project, the Klipsch lcr are behind a Seymour acoustically transparent screen.
Below are the arc measurements of the Klipsch ks-525, even on axis they roll off considerably towards 20khz.
The questions I am asking myself is this, are the Kefs the better product because of the flatter frequency response and is the mismatch im hearing due to timbre or just the fact that I am not used to them, the kef sound more direct vs the wdst design of the Klipsch. other considerations are that kef are placed in an open baffle and have not had any eq applied. Other revelations are that my side surrounds and rear channels are to high during this test procedure I lowered them and noticed a much better separation between the bed layer and the overhead speakers, there's definitely good advice in keeping the bed channels as low as possible when using overheads.

 

[Chris A]

While using the Arc quick measure feature on my Anthem Avm70 I noticed how much sooner the Klipsch roll off compared to the Kef, is the ks 525 a bad speaker [in reference to frequency response] and would the flatter kef be more desirable?

You're assuming that the readers here know how you are using your HT. If you are simply using it to watch movies only--particularly action movies with lots of sound effects, then the KS 525 is probably better suited for typical HT surround duty (multiple listening positions, typically including more than one row of seats) where the objective is more surround diffusion, which is exactly what the KS 525 does. It's not surprising that the KEFs draw more attention to themselves.

One other thing about surround loudspeakers: when playing movies, they are typically not tasked with reproducing a lot of high frequencies above 10 kHz, and lows below @80 Hz are handled by the subwoofer(s)--where the dimensions of the home theater room are not large enough to hear directivity of bass frequencies below ~80 Hz (assuming that higher frequency loudspeaker harmonic distortion is not a big factor in locating them. So they are really "echo channels" for reproducing most movie soundtracks. Lows and highs are not really that important. (You also see this in surround loudspeakers in commercial cinemas that don't really have lows below 80 Hz and highs much above 10 kHz (except for very energetic action movies--like Marvel comics movies -but those are sound effects--not music).

So are the KEFs better at full-range reproduction in terms of their amplitude response--before you turn on ARC to correct the amplitude, and perhaps phase response like Dirac does? Probably, but if you're not listening to a lot of multichannel music albums of the type where each channel is supporting specific instruments/voices (like musicians on-stage hear in orchestras and wind symphonies) you really don't have a need for full-range reproduction in the surrounds. Similarly, you typically need a very wide horizontal polar coverage of the surrounds, and if the KEFs have very narrow polars at some frequencies (probably narrow in the 800-2000 Hz range and perhaps above 10 kHz), you're going to be able to pick them out in-room, unlike the Klipsch surrounds.

One more subject that should be touched on here: I would bet that the KEFs are probably 10 dB or more inefficient than the Klipsch's. For multichannel music (only) use, you may be able to live with sound pressure levels (SPLs) that are quite a bit below the maximum levels used in movies--where the Klipsch's would actually do much better at high SPL. There's a lot more information on this subject--but KEF lovers at this forum may make that discussion contentious--so I'll delay discussing those aspects.

So, bottom line, you've got apples and oranges comparison going on here, and it helps to know which set of requirements you need to the most based on how you use your HT.

JMTC--YMMV.

Chris

 

[Dan1210]

You're assuming that the readers here know how you are using your HT. If you are simply using it to watch movies only--particularly action movies with lots of sound effects, then the KS 525 is probably better suited for typical HT surround duty (multiple listening positions, typically including more than one row of seats) where the objective is more surround diffusion, which is exactly what the KS 525 does. It's not surprising that the KEFs draw more attention to themselves.

One other thing about surround loudspeakers: when playing movies, they are typically not tasked with reproducing a lot of high frequencies above 10 kHz, and lows below @80 Hz are handled by the subwoofer(s)--where the dimensions of the home theater room are not large enough to hear directivity of bass frequencies below ~80 Hz (assuming that higher frequency loudspeaker harmonic distortion is not a big factor in locating them. So they are really "echo channels" for reproducing most movie soundtracks. Lows and highs are not really that important. (You also see this in surround loudspeakers in commercial cinemas that don't really have lows below 80 Hz and highs much above 10 kHz (except for very energetic action movies--like Marvel comics movies -but those are sound effects--not music).

So are the KEFs better at full-range reproduction in terms of their amplitude response--before you turn on ARC to correct the amplitude, and perhaps phase response like Dirac does? Probably, but if you're not listening to a lot of multichannel music albums of the type where each channel is supporting specific instruments/voices (like musicians on-stage hear in orchestras and wind symphonies) you really don't have a need for full-range reproduction in the surrounds. Similarly, you typically need a very wide horizontal polar coverage of the surrounds, and if the KEFs have very narrow polars at some frequencies (probably narrow in the 800-2000 Hz range and perhaps above 10 kHz), you're going to be able to pick them out in-room, unlike the Klipsch surrounds.

One more subject that should be touched on here: I would bet that the KEFs are probably 10 dB or more inefficient than the Klipsch's. For multichannel music (only) use, you may be able to live with sound pressure levels (SPLs) that are quite a bit below the maximum levels used in movies--where the Klipsch's would actually do much better at high SPL. There's a lot more information on this subject--but KEF lovers at this forum may make that discussion contentious--so I'll delay discussing those aspects.

So, bottom line, you've got apples and oranges comparison going on here, and it helps to know which set of requirements you need to the most based on how you use your HT.

JMTC--YMMV.

Chris

Hi Chris thank you for taking the time to reply, some great info there thanks! To clarify the room is used 90% for movies. Atmos setup 7.3.4.
After some more testing last night having eq'd and level matched the Kef I think I prefer the Klipsch as a side surround, using demos from Ready Player one and Top Gun Maverick the Klipsch blend better with the fronts as to be expected and despite being level matched to the Kef quiet sounds seem louder on the Klipsch. The treble is noticeable on the kef, tonight I will try the panning demo on the spears and munsil disk to be sure. I had picked the Kef 3160rl up secondhand so it was worth just trying them out, the Kef Thx in ceiling is great so I will keep those.
I hadn't noticed the treble roll off on the Klipsch surrounds so much until now, I am assuming as the drivers are of axis I am losing some high frequency.
Below I have attached the ARC measurements of the Kef as left surround and the Klipsch as right surround, as you can see the Klipsch roll off a lot earlier than the Kef, I am wondering if I could use the Kef 3160 as a wide speaker as it might work better for me in this location, less distracting...

 

[Spkrdctr]

Your system seems pretty good. Why did you start replacing speakers with the KEFs? Also, looking at measurement graphs will make your brain "hear" whatever the measurement graph says, even if in reality you can't hear it. If you had no problems with your initial setup, I would just leave it as is. You are finding that the Klipsch speakers were doing a pretty good job. But if your just playing around with different speakers and have the money to do so, then by all means have fun!