new KEF KC62 dual 6.5" subwoofer

[kemmler3D]

Anecdote about these from recent listening session: The pounding bit at 2:45 in Who Do You Think You Are? by Turtle Island String Quartet really shows off the extension of these puppies. Doesn't sound like much on my headphones right now, but when that part first came in, I honestly thought my neighbor was pounding on the wall for a second. At least some pressurization in my room that was legitimately surprising.

Of course I've got the LS60s and 2 KC62s within all within 15 feet of each other (or so) so maybe not that surprising.

Anyway, for future reference, a good track to show off bass performance on any system, I imagine.

 

[Willem]

Clearly the KC62 is a great apartment subwoofer with impressively flat response in just about the entire music spectrum. The KF92 will play 6 dB louder, but so will two KC62s.

 

[Daka]

Had both - KC62 and 2x KF92 for music and HT duty. KC62 is nice small, cute little thing with tight bass but definitely directed towards music. KF92 had a solid extension and very clean LF - but I was missing something when high explosions happened - this stronger punch which they didn’t quite deliver. All of them didn’t reproduce certain instruments accurately- this lingering sound, reverb like - like drums or guitar strings - it was tight super sharp sound at all times. I read somewhere this is inherent to all metallic woofers - and KEFs in general are prone to it.
Hence my next choice were Arendals 1723 s1. For less money than kc62 (got 100 off code plus outlet item so paid £1100) they punch harder and complement KEF speakers better due to non metalic woofer. Not to mention less invasive dsp which make room correction be more coherent

 

[Willem]

I don't think the woofer material makes one iota of difference. Every design is a compromise: the two Kef subs try to deliver the best result in the smallest possible package. The Arendal 1723 1s is quite a lot larger than the KF92, so it is not surprising that it outperforms the KF92.

 

[Vacceo]

Anecdote about these from recent listening session: The pounding bit at 2:45 in Who Do You Think You Are? by Turtle Island String Quartet really shows off the extension of these puppies. Doesn't sound like much on my headphones right now, but when that part first came in, I honestly thought my neighbor was pounding on the wall for a second. At least some pressurization in my room that was legitimately surprising.

Of course I've got the LS60s and 2 KC62s within all within 15 feet of each other (or so) so maybe not that surprising.

Anyway, for future reference, a good track to show off bass performance on any system, I imagine.

When I adjusted the subwoofers at home, I used Doom's (2016) OST. There is a ton low frequencies to try.

Prodigy's Breathe is another good one.

 

[Daka]

I don't think the woofer material makes one iota of difference. Every design is a compromise: the two Kef subs try to deliver the best result in the smallest possible package. The Arendal 1723 1s is quite a lot larger than the KF92, so it is not surprising that it outperforms the KF92.

Yes it is quite a bit bigger but isnt big subwoofer per se. Majority of living rooms can accommodate it easy. In woofer area KEF is closer to 13” driver.

The stiffness of cone makes a difference and there are many people who don’t like metallic woofers. Advantage of metallic woofer is imaging that can be very accurate, pin point sharp.

 

[Vacceo]

I guess KEF could push a slightly larger, Arendal S size subwoofer with a pair of 10 or 11 inches woofers, something around the size of their old PSW 2500.

Probably the extension will be as good as the current KF, but with the benefit of more SPL due to pure size alone.

 

[Koeitje]

Yes it is quite a bit bigger but isnt big subwoofer per se. Majority of living rooms can accommodate it easy. In woofer area KEF is closer to 13” driver.

The stiffness of cone makes a difference and there are many people who don’t like metallic woofers. Advantage of metallic woofer is imaging that can be very accurate, pin point sharp.

How do you measure imaging? How do you even define imaging in technical terms?

Cone material matters for distortion and cone break up. For example paper tends to have more distortion, because it isn't as rigid. But cone breakup also happens more smoothly.

 

[Daka]

How do you measure imaging? How do you even define imaging in technical terms?

Cone material matters for distortion and cone break up. For example paper tends to have more distortion, because it isn't as rigid. But cone breakup also happens more smoothly.

And that what it is - distortion - because of the flex of the cone. Metallic woofers don’t flex and can provide pin point control that translates into accuracy.
Higher the accuracy = lower the distortion

 

[Daka]

I guess KEF could push a slightly larger, Arendal S size subwoofer with a pair of 10 or 11 inches woofers, something around the size of their old PSW 2500.

Probably the extension will be as good as the current KF, but with the benefit of more SPL due to pure size alone.

From cost perspective, as it would cost more than kf92, probably not going to happen. For music kf92 is sufficient for vast majority. For cinema you can get a monster of a sub for kf92 price not to mention even higher price. They could refresh kube series though - design wise closer to what REL HT look like 15” like that under 2k and I’m interested.

 

[kemmler3D]

Yes it is quite a bit bigger but isnt big subwoofer per se. Majority of living rooms can accommodate it easy. In woofer area KEF is closer to 13” driver.

The stiffness of cone makes a difference and there are many people who don’t like metallic woofers. Advantage of metallic woofer is imaging that can be very accurate, pin point sharp.

I would say that subwoofer have basically no impact on imaging - after all it's hard to even localize sound below 200hz, basically impossible below 80hz.

 

[Vacceo]

From cost perspective, as it would cost more than kf92, probably not going to happen. For music kf92 is sufficient for vast majority. For cinema you can get a monster of a sub for kf92 price not to mention even higher price. They could refresh kube series though - design wise closer to what REL HT look like 15” like that under 2k and I’m interested.

Well, something akin to Arendal's S2 should not be a lot more expensive than the KF. They could use the same amp and DSP, same connectors and larger woofers and enclosure. More expensive, sure; but not double the price.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I would say that subwoofer have basically no impact on imaging - after all it's hard to even localize sound below 200hz, basically impossible below 80hz.

But a lot of impact on envelopment and sense of spaciousness, and the experience of sensing the room where the recording was made.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The Kef KF 92 is about the same size as an SVS SB 2000, costs around 4x more, and won't hit anywhere near 20 hz at 100 db (the SVS will at least come close).

I'm sure a lot of people will argue it better fits into a smaler space than the SVS but consider the KEF is 13"W x 13 7/8" H x 14 3/16" D while the SVS SB 2000 is 14 3/16"W x 14 9/16"H x 17 1/16" D w grill. It's been on sale at their outllet for $500 while the Kef costs $1995, and Erin's Audio Corner's test confirm the KEF has a limiter which kicks in at around 40 HZ, keeping anechoic output below that frequency to around 83-85 db at volumes above 90 hz.

So unless you deliberately want a sub which limits its output and are willing to pay a $1500 premium for such a filter (which you could of course design with EAPO or Dirac or JRiver or any other number of programs for free), the SVS would seem like the better choice.

 

[kemmler3D]

But a lot of impact on envelopment and sense of spaciousness, and the experience of sensing the room where the recording was made.

Sure - reverb and other spatial cues are not inherently band-limited. This is also leaving aside the idea of whether paper or metal are inherently related to spaciousness, which is debatable...

I guess since paper typically breaks up at lower frequencies, you'll actually get more THD sooner (rather than all at once at the first breakup mode) which is often claimed to enhance a sense of space.

 

[kemmler3D]

The Kef KF 92 is about the same size as an SVS SB 2000, costs around 4x more, and won't hit anywhere near 20 hz at 100 db (the SVS will at least come close).

I'm sure a lot of people will argue it better fits into a smaler space than the SVS but consider the KEF is 13"W x 13 7/8" H x 14 3/16" D while the SVS SB 2000 is 14 3/16"W x 14 9/16"H x 17 1/16" D w grill. It's been on sale at their outllet for $500 while the Kef costs $1995, and Erin's Audio Corner's test confirm the KEF has a limiter which kicks in at around 40 HZ, keeping anechoic output below that frequency to around 83-85 db at volumes above 90 hz.

So unless you deliberately want a sub which limits its output and are willing to pay a $1500 premium for such a filter (which you could of course design with EAPO or Dirac or JRiver or any other number of programs for free), the SVS would seem like the better choice.

That's a pretty fair take. Put it like this - no way would I have bought a pair of these if they didn't come as part of a completely smoking deal on some LS60s. But, since I did, I'm not mad that I have to live with them.

If I were buying individual pieces I am sure it would go towards something like the SB2000 or similar.

 

[Vacceo]

That's a pretty fair take. Put it like this - no way would I have bought a pair of these if they didn't come as part of a completely smoking deal on some LS60s. But, since I did, I'm not mad that I have to live with them.

If I were buying individual pieces I am sure it would go towards something like the SB2000 or similar.

Imagine the capacity to add Dirac correction to the whole pack...

 

[C0mbat]

Hi all, I'm new to this forum and hope you can help me with a couple of things. I just took delivery of the Kef LSX II to compare them to my Q Acoustics Q Active 200. I had previously paired the Q Acoustics manually to my Kef KC62 and set the crossover manually. After a bit of searching around on the Kef Connect App, I realised that you can to set up an EQ profile in order to set up the subwoofer.

I selected the KC62 and as a result of that it seems to pre-set the crossover and the volume. Can anyone else confirm that? Because a) the crossover is set completely weighted towards the speaker rather than the sub and b) the volume of the sub is maybe a bit lower than I would have expected. See the screenshot. It still sounds really good so I'm assuming it's set up correctly but I wanted to check.

 

[kemmler3D]

Hi all, I'm new to this forum and hope you can help me with a couple of things. I just took delivery of the Kef LSX II to compare them to my Q Acoustics Q Active 200. I had previously paired the Q Acoustics manually to my Kef KC62 and set the crossover manually. After a bit of searching around on the Kef Connect App, I realised that you can to set up an EQ profile in order to set up the subwoofer.

I selected the KC62 and as a result of that it seems to pre-set the crossover and the volume. Can anyone else confirm that? Because a) the crossover is set completely weighted towards the speaker rather than the sub and b) the volume of the sub is maybe a bit lower than I would have expected. See the screenshot. It still sounds really good so I'm assuming it's set up correctly but I wanted to check.

That's how it worked for me with the LS60. It doesn't do calibration per se, obviously, but it has a preset gain and crossover frequency. I had the same impression as you, that it left too much to the mains and with one sub the bass wasn't particularly loud.

I also found that the crossover was a little low for my taste. I think it goes for a smooth transition, perhaps while leaving as much power for the lowest frequencies as it can.

This is probably sensible if you're not doing room correction.

I would recommend playing with the settings to get a better in-room response, the defaults are just a first approximation.

Tip: If you adjust the high-pass, also adjust the low-pass. I found that the bass got bloated pretty quickly if I had too much overlap, no surprise.

 

[C0mbat]

That's how it worked for me with the LS60. It doesn't do calibration per se, obviously, but it has a preset gain and crossover frequency. I had the same impression as you, that it left too much to the mains and with one sub the bass wasn't particularly loud.

I also found that the crossover was a little low for my taste. I think it goes for a smooth transition, perhaps while leaving as much power for the lowest frequencies as it can.

This is probably sensible if you're not doing room correction.

I would recommend playing with the settings to get a better in-room response, the defaults are just a first approximation.

Tip: If you adjust the high-pass, also adjust the low-pass. I found that the bass got bloated pretty quickly if I had too much overlap, no surprise.

Thanks for the response. I decided to increase the cross over and that made it significantly better. I also slightly upped the volume of the sub. Without doing either I feel that it makes the KC62 a waste of money as you're really not hearing it that much.

Overall I'm liking the treble of the LSX IIs but feel that the Q Acoustic Q Active 200s have a better mid-range and better integration with the sub (probably because the bass goes lower on them). I'll probably just sell the LSX IIs. I also have a pair of LS50 Meta coming so we'll see how they compare to the Q Actives once I get a cheap amp and streamer for them.