KEF's new Q range

[Ajani]

So it looks like KEF is attempting an aggressive comeback with the new Q range. The look and Tech is a substantial departure from the old IQ series... Most noticeably the lack of curved cabinetry and the use of passive radiators instead of ports... Considering the 'mixed' reviews of the last IQ line, I'm not surprised it has been replaced so dramatically... Hopefully this new one will be a major player in the sub $2K speaker market...

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/4991222786_f416dac5ae_z.jpg



http://www.avforums.com/forums/speakers/1324095-kefs-new-q-series-unveiled.html

http://www.kef.com/en/newrelease/qseries

[audio amateur]

They need to stop coming out with a new incarnation every freakin' year

[Ajani]

They need to stop coming out with a new incarnation every freakin' year

Agreed... but I think the reason is because the last incarnation got a number of nasty reviews, so they needed to replace it quickly...

[GMichael]

I liked the rounded box look better. Couldn't they have updated the drivers and PR's without making them so boxy?

[Ajani]

I liked the rounded box look better. Couldn't they have updated the drivers and PR's without making them so boxy?

Possibly, but odds are it would have added to the cost... Also, it maybe an attempt to convince HiFi nuts that the new line is totally about performance...

[Ajani]

Found a link with the prices:

http://www.bigpicturebigsound.com/KEF-Redesigns-Q-Series-Speakers.shtml

Looks good, I thought they'd cost more...

[frenchmon]

I haven't read any of the reviews on the old IQ series...what was the knock on them. I did hear they where beaming and no bass, but that was about it. It seems the old series are being let go at half the price of its original price.

[audio amateur]

i have the iQ5 SE which the last series (called iQ50 in the case of my speaker's replacement) is based on. The iQ5s were rated 5 stars by what hifi and the iQ50 (supposedly an improvement) were rated 3 stars... Go figure. I think it goes to show how subjective and difficult it is to evaluate speakers/audio in general. There's a lot of crap talk/placebo in the industry and it's slowly pushing me away...

[TheHills44060]

As far as looks go these things are a monumental step down from the previous iteration.

[audio amateur]

Indeed, and it looks like they copied B&W cabinets on the 600 series. Not to say that the 600 cabinets look bad, I own the 686's too...

[GMichael]

i have the iQ5 SE which the last series (called iQ50 in the case of my speaker's replacement) is based on. The iQ5s were rated 5 stars by what hifi and the iQ50 (supposedly an improvement) were rated 3 stars... Go figure. I think it goes to show how subjective and difficult it is to evaluate speakers/audio in general. There's a lot of crap talk/placebo in the industry and it's slowly pushing me away...

It's hard to count on reviews. Especially if you don’t know their background. Someone who bought a pair of those after owning Bose or worse would say they are great. 5 stars! Someone who has owned something much better might say they are just OK. 3 stars. Also the amps etc they are using could play a big factor. All you can do is try them yourself.

[audio amateur]

It's hard to count on reviews. Especially if you don’t know their background. Someone who bought a pair of those after owning Bose or worse would say they are great. 5 stars! Someone who has owned something much better might say they are just OK. 3 stars. Also the amps etc they are using could play a big factor. All you can do is try them yourself.
Im not complaining my iQ5's were rated 5 stars and yet the newer incarnation were rated 3 by the same people. What im saying is that i feel as though reviews are based on a coin toss, and audiophiles tend to imagine a lot of what they claim to hear.

[Ajani]

Im not complaining my iQ5's were rated 5 stars and yet the newer incarnation were rated 3 by the same people. What im saying is that i feel as though reviews are based on a coin toss, and audiophiles tend to imagine a lot of what they claim to hear.

I think you maybe drawing the wrong conclusion:

You seem to be assuming that the drop in rating for the IQ50 compared to the highly rated IQ5 and IQ5SE is just an example of arbitrary rating.

However, all the reviews I've read, whether from mags (such as WHF) or opinions from dealers, are that the IQ50 line sounded substantially different from the previous IQ5 line... Whether they were given a good or bad rating they were always described as sounding far smoother (and less exciting) than the previous line...

Now consider that WHF generally loves exciting products and it makes sense that they might prefer the old IQ5 line to the IQ50 line (which they actually stated in at least one review if I"m not mistaken)...

[frenchmon]

i have the iQ5 SE which the last series (called iQ50 in the case of my speaker's replacement) is based on. The iQ5s were rated 5 stars by what hifi and the iQ50 (supposedly an improvement) were rated 3 stars... Go figure. I think it goes to show how subjective and difficult it is to evaluate speakers/audio in general. There's a lot of crap talk/placebo in the industry and it's slowly pushing me away...

I hear ya. What hifi rated a pair of speaker...Canton 402 with I think it was a 2 or 3 star and said some pretty bad things about the speaker. Well I have the big brothers to the 402's. And the write-up from what hifi was totally different from my experience and I politely wrote a rebuttal to what they wrote in the review section. To my surprise a few weeks latter, there where a few more reviews backing up everything I said about the speaker and they all said they could not understand why what hifi gave such a bad review of the speakers. So most times I never take a review seriously. Like my entry level TT that was gifted to me. Reviews where not that great. A few said it was a bad turntable. well, I put a $100 cart on it, built a turn table platform for it...set it up properly, and this thing sounds miles ahead of a Technics turntable that I have and just as good as my Musical Fidelity CDP which new before discontinued retailed for about $1500. So while I do read some reviews, they always leave me wondering how wrong or how right they are

[Ajani]

I hear ya. What hifi rated a pair of speaker...Canton 402 with I think it was a 2 or 3 star and said some pretty bad things about the speaker. Well I have the big brothers to the 402's. And the write-up from what hifi was totally different from my experience and I politely wrote a rebuttal to what they wrote in the review section. To my surprise a few weeks latter, there where a few more reviews backing up everything I said about the speaker and they all said they could not understand why what hifi gave such a bad review of the speakers. So most times I never take a review seriously. Like my entry level TT that was gifted to me. Reviews where not that great. A few said it was a bad turntable. well, I put a $100 cart on it, built a turn table platform for it...set it up properly, and this thing sounds miles ahead of a Technics turntable that I have and just as good as my Musical Fidelity CDP which new before discontinued retailed for about $1500. So while I do read some reviews, they always leave me wondering how wrong or how right they are

The thing to remember is that a review is just an opinion! Whether the opinion of just one 'expert' reviewer or a panel of reviewers (which does not necessarily mean that the product's rating was unanimous, just that majority rules) it is still just an opinion. So use or discard that opinion as you deem fit...

However, I don't believe that these opinions are just arbitrary (see my earlier reply to AA)... You and I can hear the same product and react to it differently, simply because we have different sonic priorities... So you if you are going to take a reviewer's opinion seriously, you really need to make sure that you and the reviewer have similar tastes...

[frenchmon]

The thing to remember is that a review is just an opinion! Whether the opinion of just one 'expert' reviewer or a panel of reviewers (which does not necessarily mean that the product's rating was unanimous, just that majority rules) it is still just an opinion. So use or discard that opinion as you deem fit...

However, I don't believe that these opinions are just arbitrary (see my earlier reply to AA)... You and I can hear the same product and react to it differently, simply because we have different sonic priorities... So you if you are going to take a reviewer's opinion seriously, you really need to make sure that you and the reviewer have similar tastes...

Well they where well over board and wrong.

THis is some of what they said:


"Against
Average build; can sound edgy and tiring; midrange lacks substance"

The build quality of that speaker is excellent! And the Midrange is one of the strong points. Thats one of the things MrP notice right away when I took the speaker to his house. LeRoy also noticed it.

They also say this:

"unless you get turned on by a grille that looks like a fan heater made out of recycled sieves, there’s not a lot of visual stimulation here."

Heres a Picture:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3186/260x30036431564633.jpg (http://img716.imageshack.us/i/260x30036431564633.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Now that's a flat out lie! The grills for that series is metal, but they are so attractive you just sit there with amazement and wonder why more speaker companies don't use that concept. I guess the metal as apposed to cloth is to expensive. MrP was surprised that the grills came off. And by them being a very light aluminum grill, they add extra protection to the drivers. And yeah, you can see the drivers through the grill. Imma telling you, who ever it was over at what hifi that did that review musta been smoking crack! The build quality and the looks of that speaker is very attractive indeed.


And heres the kicker...they finally say this about the Cantons

"Lacking in substance
So while there’s plenty of excitement, beneath this upbeat exterior there’s not the substance to get your teeth in to."

Like I said...they where smoking crack or something to that nature. IF it where not a darn good speaker, I would not have it in my system.

Yes I know that sound is subjective...but what they say pertaining to that speaker is 100% off the mark. Lack in substance??? You have got to be kidding me.

I understand what you are saying Ajani, but this is a case where you seem to think someone paid them off to say those things.


Heres a link to the review. http://whathifi.com/Review/Canton-GLE-420/


Read what they say about the speaker and then go to the "your opinion" section and read. The earliest reviews are on the bottom and the latest are on the top. My review name is "dodi". Then read what the other two said. They backed me all the way.

Like I said...what hifi was on drugs during that review or they must have been paid by some one.

[RGA]

What I say has nothing to do with the sound of KEF directly but a point on philosophy of sound that people seem not to look at or care about and that is troubling.

Some companies seem to be more interested in merely pumping out a product to make a sale than actually caring at all about the sound or following a sonic aesthetic (a belief about the way reproduction of music should result).

If a speaker maker one year is selling tall slim and curved and then the next year short fat and thin and then changes back a few years later and then tries tweeter on top and gets rid of it and so and so forth that to me is a company looking at the marketing trends over the actual sound of products. It's the same with tube makers who sell SS trying to meet market demand rather than being passionate about the sound it brings to the table (stick in pretty lighted meters and charge a lot and people will buy).

And then further to this if the maker changes track and builds something that get bad reviews (which is real tough to do these days) then why on earth would you trust them in the future.

It comes down to the designers and if the designers leave the company and they hire new designers then it's not really the same company or sound. The name is the same the design is not and the sound may not be to same standard. Sometimes the new designer is better than the old one but sometimes it's the other way around.

Kef has never been strong in my area of the world same for NHT because they keep changing track to try and make a buck. Wharfedale did the same years back. Klipsch survives because Klipsch sticks with horns and you know in general what sort of sound you're going to get. Some lines are better than others but there is a sort of house presentation. With Wharfedale, KEF, Boston Acoustics it seemed to change every few years grasping for a "ahh that sounds like a Wharfedale" - no one can say that about wharfedale because they made computer speakers with horns without wide and shallow, tweeter on tops, all sorts of woofers and tweeters. They've been better lately under the Quad umbrella but it's basically a completely different design approach now simply using the Wharfedale name which is well known. But they share aboslutely zero with the likes of the Vanguard that I own and the E70 in the 80s which were different again to their previous designs. Tannoy however always stuck to dual concentric except for their very entry designs. You think Tannoy you think dual concentric. You think Klipsch you think Horns. And that may be why they're not in chapter 13.

[Ajani]

What I say has nothing to do with the sound of KEF directly but a point on philosophy of sound that people seem not to look at or care about and that is troubling.

Some companies seem to be more interested in merely pumping out a product to make a sale than actually caring at all about the sound or following a sonic aesthetic (a belief about the way reproduction of music should result).

If a speaker maker one year is selling tall slim and curved and then the next year short fat and thin and then changes back a few years later and then tries tweeter on top and gets rid of it and so and so forth that to me is a company looking at the marketing trends over the actual sound of products. It's the same with tube makers who sell SS trying to meet market demand rather than being passionate about the sound it brings to the table (stick in pretty lighted meters and charge a lot and people will buy).

And then further to this if the maker changes track and builds something that get bad reviews (which is real tough to do these days) then why on earth would you trust them in the future.

It comes down to the designers and if the designers leave the company and they hire new designers then it's not really the same company or sound. The name is the same the design is not and the sound may not be to same standard. Sometimes the new designer is better than the old one but sometimes it's the other way around.

Kef has never been strong in my area of the world same for NHT because they keep changing track to try and make a buck. Wharfedale did the same years back. Klipsch survives because Klipsch sticks with horns and you know in general what sort of sound you're going to get. Some lines are better than others but there is a sort of house presentation. With Wharfedale, KEF, Boston Acoustics it seemed to change every few years grasping for a "ahh that sounds like a Wharfedale" - no one can say that about wharfedale because they made computer speakers with horns without wide and shallow, tweeter on tops, all sorts of woofers and tweeters. They've been better lately under the Quad umbrella but it's basically a completely different design approach now simply using the Wharfedale name which is well known. But they share aboslutely zero with the likes of the Vanguard that I own and the E70 in the 80s which were different again to their previous designs. Tannoy however always stuck to dual concentric except for their very entry designs. You think Tannoy you think dual concentric. You think Klipsch you think Horns. And that may be why they're not in chapter 13.

Despite having enjoyed products from brands who switch directions too frequently, I have to agree with your basic point. It's one thing to improve/refine your product slowly over time and another to ditch the old design and go in a totally different direction. KEF has just done that with the new Q line. That maybe for the better, but it also means you can't rely on the name KEF, as you have no idea what such a product might sound or even look like...

I do believe that your basic design philosophy should be consistent...

[theaudiohobby]

Despite having enjoyed products from brands who switch directions too frequently, I have to agree with your basic point. It's one thing to improve/refine your product slowly over time and another to ditch the old design and go in a totally different direction. KEF has just done that with the new Q line. That maybe for the better, but it also means you can't rely on the name KEF, as you have no idea what such a product might sound or even look like...

I do believe that your basic design philosophy should be consistent...
In KEF case are they to persist with a product line that supposedly bombed in the market :blush2:, their basic design philosophy has not changed as far as I can see as they still retain the UniQ driver in the new line, Refreshing your product line is not such a bad idea if you intend to attract new customers.

[Ajani]

In KEF case are they to persist with a product line that supposedly bombed in the market :blush2:, their basic design philosophy has not changed as far as I can see as they still retain the UniQ driver in the new line, Refreshing your product line is not such a bad idea if you intend to attract new customers.

I'm not sure that it bombed, just got mixed reviews... there were many loyal KEF fans complaining about the reviews...

Also, the UniQ driver (which has been significantly altered) is just one part of the design of the previous Q series. The drivers have been changed, the cabinets are totally different, even passive bass radiators have been added (another major change)... so they are a total redesign...

I expect this redesign to be for the better, but it will still annoy some existing KEF fans who liked the older designs...

[Ajani]

Well they where well over board and wrong.

.................................................. .......................................

Like I said...what hifi was on drugs during that review or they must have been paid by some one.

I would rule out the "paid by someone" conclusion, simply because they bash every HiFi brand at one point or the other... Seriously, one product in the line from a major brand will get 5 stars and win an award, while another product in the line will get 2 stars...

Compared to some of the bashings I've seen on WHF, the Canton review really wasn't so bad...

However, I think that WHF may tend to enjoy bashing a product they don't fancy way too much... It often seems like they either love a product or want to run it over with a van... I doubt it's bribery, but just over enthusiasm in the reviews...

Like all reviews, I take everything they say with a grain of salt... Since at the end of the day, only my opinion on what sounds good really matters....

[frenchmon]

I would rule out the "paid by someone" conclusion, simply because they bash every HiFi brand at one point or the other... Seriously, one product in the line from a major brand will get 5 stars and win an award, while another product in the line will get 2 stars...

Compared to some of the bashings I've seen on WHF, the Canton review really wasn't so bad...

However, I think that WHF may tend to enjoy bashing a product they don't fancy way too much... It often seems like they either love a product or want to run it over with a van... I doubt it's bribery, but just over enthusiasm in the reviews...

Like all reviews, I take everything they say with a grain of salt... Since at the end of the day, only my opinion on what sounds good really matters....

Yeah,,,I think you're right.

[theaudiohobby]

I'm not sure that it bombed, just got mixed reviews... there were many loyal KEF fans complaining about the reviews...

Also, the UniQ driver (which has been significantly altered) is just one part of the design of the previous Q series. The drivers have been changed, the cabinets are totally different, even passive bass radiators have been added (another major change)... so they are a total redesign...

I expect this redesign to be for the better, but it will still annoy some existing KEF fans who liked the older designs...
Not too much, as I recall that the Q series was rectangular shaped about ten years ago :), going back to the future, and their main competition in this market sector, B&W and Monitor Audio seem to have retained rectangular boxes.