- Thread Starter
- #61
I’m sorry for my ignorance but I can’t see the distinction in their website. I appreciate if you explain.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Official KEF Ci5160REF -THX spinorama
- Thread starter sarumbear
- Start date
nerdoldnerdith
Senior Member
KEF Ci5160REF-THX In-Wall Reference Speaker
Features KEF’s patented Uni-Q driver array The standards of architectural speakers have been reset forever. The in-wall KEF Ci5160REF-THX - meets KEF’s standards for Extreme Theatre as well as THX Ultra Certification.
us.kef.com
Ci5160RL-THX Ultra2 Certified Ultimate In-Wall Home Theater Speaker | KEF
THX ULTRA Certified Three-way Speaker The Ci5160RL-THX is crafted with a massive aluminium baffle to eliminate vibration and is the perfect platform for the 160mm aluminium cone Uni-Q with tangerine waveguide, and four 160mm woofers. Capable of bi-wire and bi-amplifier connections the...
us.kef.com
The speakers are nearly identical except for the recommended amplifier power. The Reference series has higher power handling. This translates to lower thermal compression and higher output capabilities.
Just to throw this into the mix. I spoke to Kef last week and asked them about the ci4100. They told me that as far as sound quality goes at moderate levels there would be very little to no difference between this and the ci3160. The main difference comes when you crank it up. The ci3160 then takes on that greater authority, presence and refinement with lower distortion. At a typical -15db below reference levels and in a room up to approx. 2000ft3 there would be little between them.
I was not expecting this as the ci3160 is triple the price, the set up is 2.5 way rather than 3 way and they have different sized drivers. To be honest I am quite sceptical about this claim. Has anyone heard both in order to compare?
I was not expecting this as the ci3160 is triple the price, the set up is 2.5 way rather than 3 way and they have different sized drivers. To be honest I am quite sceptical about this claim. Has anyone heard both in order to compare?
Well we can only draw the slightest of hints by comparing the R3 to the REF 1 meta. Third harmonic is more or less the same, The Subbass THD suffers in the meta more because its port is tuned lower, R3 has lower second harmonic, but that's hardly relevant before we're hitting 10% THD or -20dB. Output wise they seem more or less the same, but we have very limited data. Personally The reference series is handmade in the UK with much higher quality internal parts, finish and other stuff. So it's the obvious choice if you have the $$$.
- Thread Starter
- #65
Has KEF also explained why there is an over four times price difference?KEF Ci5160REF-THX In-Wall Reference Speaker
Features KEF’s patented Uni-Q driver array The standards of architectural speakers have been reset forever. The in-wall KEF Ci5160REF-THX - meets KEF’s standards for Extreme Theatre as well as THX Ultra Certification.Ci5160RL-THX Ultra2 Certified Ultimate In-Wall Home Theater Speaker | KEF
THX ULTRA Certified Three-way Speaker The Ci5160RL-THX is crafted with a massive aluminium baffle to eliminate vibration and is the perfect platform for the 160mm aluminium cone Uni-Q with tangerine waveguide, and four 160mm woofers. Capable of bi-wire and bi-amplifier connections the...
The speakers are nearly identical except for the recommended amplifier power. The Reference series has higher power handling. This translates to lower thermal compression and higher output capabilities.
Well we can only draw the slightest of hints by comparing the R3 to the REF 1 meta. Third harmonic is more or less the same, The Subbass THD suffers in the meta more because its port is tuned lower, R3 has lower second harmonic, but that's hardly relevant before we're hitting 10% THD or -20dB. Output wise they seem more or less the same, but we have very limited data. Personally The reference series is handmade in the UK with much higher quality internal parts, finish and other stuff. So it's the obvious choice if you have the $$$.
Im new to these graphs and still trying to understand what they mean and their relevance. I found some measurements for the ci4100 but again I am a bit lost interpreting them.
How do they compare to the rl and ref? Basically I’m trying to work out whether spending more on the ci3160s will be money well spent or a bit of a waste.
Review KEF CI4100QL THX in-wall speaker
We are testing an affordable system from KEF: the CI4100QL THX. In the Alpha way. So with installation and measurements. Let's go!
alpha-audio.net
Attachments
Honestly there is little relevance, but once the speaker reaches -20 dB (10%) at a certain frequency you know that it's out of output.
yeah for sure. but ofcourse thermal limits of tweeters and the woofers themselves are more relevant when you're like talking about levels over 110dB.
- Thread Starter
- #70
No. That -20dB is the distortion in dB I.e. 10%. SPL is shown at the chart title.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Sounds about right to me.
Once SPL reaches moderate loud it takes much more power and driver displacement to escalate the SPL level higher cleanly.
If your are not going for extremely loud playback and especially if don't have a large space a much more modest system will be fine. Additionally a huge sense of impact and scale with be provided by your subwoofers so spend there.
The actual difference between the two speakers will be hard to verify as who has a room with both installed? Maybe find a dealer with both in the same exact room.
Otherwise trust KEF, they are not up selling you which is nice.
(Or go big or go home
if that is required for piece of mind)nerdoldnerdith
Senior Member
Presumably because the drivers in the Reference series are more expensive. More power handling means they have to use larger voice coils and bigger magnets. It gets expensive pretty quickly to engineer drivers that can perform at that level.
Thank you for explaining! It sounds easy as you elaborate (I know it´s not). I had already abandoned the idea to include HH resonators because they tackle a relatively narrow band. I suppose you measured the results in REW?
I have two types. Three are inside the false ceiling that I had for a few years and two recent ones that are part of the false wall that houses the LCR, subs and the TV.
The ones in the ceiling are 10” plastic drain tubes, around 5m long (250 litres). Length is adjustable but didn’t need to adjust it. There is a hole on one side with a sliding cover, which tunes the resonator.
The ones on the sides of the false wall are made using the wall cavity. They are floor to ceiling high (3m) and 55cm wide. The wall is around 20cm deep. Total volume is around 300 litres. There are lots of joists to stop the outside (listener facing) surface resonating by itself while allowing air to move freely in the enclosure. Towards the bottom there is a slot similar to a vent. A sliding panel covers the slot and tunes the resonator.
I used resonators to tame my room modes as I have a large room and standing waves are fierce. In a smaller room the in-wall units can be replaced with panel absorbers though they will require a deeper wall.
Building a resonator is easy. There are a few HR calculators on the Net. They are big but simple and any carpenter can do it. They should be treated part of the room though, not as a free-standing equipment. However, if your aberrations are not low frequency, a couple small, free-standing resonators can work to tame frequencies above 40Hz.
I have 10cm rockwool panel absorbers with space gap, but I consider them effective in the 100-125hz+ range, I´m especially concerned in freq below 125Hz. I will have lots of space behind my future baffle wall with JBL 4722 LCR´s (3.3m high, approx 60cm deep) so it would be good to implement HH resonators, if effective enough. I´m a strong believer in optimizing the room before any DSP or even subwoofer optimization (2x B&C 18hz ported 21" subs).
- Thread Starter
- #74
Thank you for telling me a liar. It’s strange that you tell us that you have no experience in resonators but have rejected them.
Where did i tell you´re a liar?
I said I had (in the past) abandoned installing HH resonators because they´re narrow band, I tried to get more info from you as you seem to be happy with your implementation, but if you have long toes I´ll consult elsewhere.
- Thread Starter
- #76
You said: “Thank you for explaining! It sounds easy as you elaborate (I know it´s not),” in response to what I said it’s not difficult. Which part of it is nor rebuking me as a liar?Where did i tell you´re a liar?
I said I had (in the past) abandoned installing HH resonators because they´re narrow band, I tried to get more info from you as you seem to be happy with your implementation, but if you have long toes I´ll consult elsewhere.
I´m no native English speaker. I thanked you for explaining in a simple/easy way and said I know implementing HH resonators is not easy.
Whatever.
- Thread Starter
- #79
I can assure you it’s easy IF you ones are or can hire a carpenter.
- Thread Starter
- #80
It’s called reading the words as they are meant, which is what people do on forums. You may say why people are not bad in using the language.What are you so sensitive? No stress man
Similar threads
- Poll