I stumbled into the audiokharma forum and found a thread that walks you thru recapping and replacing the ferrofluid in the tweeter. they also replace the 'opamp'? in the kube. I know this thread is ancient but the speakers remain favorites. |
Since my previous post, I have replaced the 104/2s with 107/2s and 107/2 KUBE. The 107/2s had the surrounds professionally replaced shortly before I bought them. I cross them to the subs at 80 Hz, but in the setup I'm using (analog for an Oppo 95 to Cary 11a in bypass mode to KUBE to Proceed HPA 3) there is no bass management with DSD. It's obvious the 107/2s don't need to be supplemented by the subs for music. They are amazing speakers.
db |
I recently inherited a pair of KEF Ref 107 II's and I think they sound amazing. I do not believe I have ever heard any speakers like them :-) However, I understand from this thread that I should probably do something with them to make them sound better (change woofer surrounds?). I do not know anything about this, but I would really like to learn and could use some advice on how to get started, where to buy spare parts, what to look for etc. Could you help me please?
BR,
Erik |
responding to Kenwood700cmt:
recently I have upgraded the MF/HF xo to Solen caps, replacing the stock Alcaps and adding a bit of Cardas Quad Eutectic solder to all contacts: as expected, the sound stage widened and everything is clearer. Maybe I should replace the internal wiring with something better. I am sure replacing the caps in the LF xo will tighten up the bass but I am pretty happy with that already.
After so many years, I suspect that the fluid in the T33 / SP1210 tweeters have started to dry out (havent noticed the drop but it may happen so gradual that I didnt notice or I am just getting more deaf). I wonder if anyone has tried to upgrade the existing ones to ScanSpeak 9300 or 9500 (which have a very similar frequency plot as the T33) with satisfactory results. If anyone has new old stock of a pair of Vifa MG27 and want to sell them, please email me, thanks! |
I've had 107/2s since the early nineties (replaced my AR9s). I think the differences between the 107 & 107/2 is mostly attributable the KUBEs each use. I listened to both versions when I was shopping (the dealer had older ones still in stock), and I recall thinking the /2 was worth the price difference (around $500, IIRC). KEF claimed the only changes were a new tweeter, bi-amp ability, and the design of the KUBE... my suspicion then, as now, is that the KUBE makes the biggest difference. I listened to each, with, and without their KUBEs, and the older model sounded worse in the mids & highs, with the KUBE. The newer model sounded almost exactly the same with, or without it's KUBE... except for the improved base, of course. I wouldn't use my 107/2s without the KUBE, if I had an older model, I'd look for a newer KUBE!
Also, it should be mentioned that any 107s are going to need new woofer surrounds by now, even the last of them are certainly cracking. I just redid mine a few weeks ago, and I should have done it a couple of years ago! A properly working pair of 107s (with the KUBE) have AMAZING base that IMHO can't be beat for less than $10k. |
has anyone ever tried to upgrade the crossover on the 107. With the vast improvement in semi conductors .....there should be some audible differences......
i have the 107 and the 107/2... i would like to upgrade/ modify my 107 to become 107/2......Has anyone ever attempted? |
I presume that if you cross the 107s or 107/2s to a suitable sub below 80 Hz the KUBE is not needed; is that correct? I have a KUBE designed for use with 104/2s that I have never used, because I cross my 104/2s below 80 Hz to my Velodyne HGS-15. It seems logical to me that freeing the KEF drivers from very LF excursions can only enhance their airiness and transparency above the cross over. Although the 104/2s excellent full range speakers, the sub adds LF extension, noticeable especially with low pedal notes of pipe organs. The 104/2s seem to loose a bit of airiness when used full range with the sub, so I always cross at 80 Hz.
db |
Running my 107s with McIntosh MC252.......a match made in heaven....additionally I utilize a fully balanced KUBE....very rare bird indeed! |
I Disagree
I own the 107s and the 107/2. They do both sound similar, yet I prefer the sound of the 107s. They seem a little more coherent to me. The ability to biamp is all well and good and that is how I have my 107/2 set up. But to be honest there is really no difference in the sound or if their is it is not easy to hear. The 107s have exceptional bass control already (when used with the Kube). If you find the 107s to be a little dark, remember that the cabling used to connect the Kube via th tape loop on the preamp makes a significant difference to the sound. The 107s ans 107/2 are exceptionally neutral compared to most other speaker systems and I've owned many. They continue to surprise me with each upgrade I make in the chain. If mediocre components are used in the chain, then the end result will be somewhat mediocre. If cables are changed anywhere in the chain the results are immediately noticable. I am very familiar with the 107 and it isn't perfect, but its not far off. In other words I've heard better, but nothing yet that totally eclipses their performance. Properly set up; ie well out from the back wall by almost 4 feet - used WITH the Kube and with excellent electronics and cabling, these speakers will deliver excellent performance. |
last time i enquired about the 107 - 107/2 upgrade at doug brady's ( warrington ) it was £650 and doug was sayin the difference is not worth the price so i didn't bother
i have had my 107's for over 15 years and they still make me want to listen :)
i use meridian amp/preamp and the seem to compliment the kefs quite well
|
last time i enquired about the 107 - 107/2 upgrade at doug brady's ( warrington ) it was £650 and doug was sayin the difference is not worth the price so i didn't bother
i have had my 107's for over 15 years and they still make me want to listen :)
i use meridian amp/preamp and the seem to compliment the kefs quite well
|
Thanks everyone. This is pretty much what I suspected. |
I have owned a set of the 107/2 since 1992, and compared the 107 and 107/2 in the same system at the time of purchase. I thought the 107 and 107/2 had a very similar overall sound, although the 107/2 was somewhat more transparent in the upper frequencies. Overall, I thought the major weakness of the KEF 107 was that it was a little dark, and the 107/2 reduced (but did not eliminate) that weakness.
While the MA6500 is a fine integrated amplifier, I have found that the 107/2 like a lot of power. My recommendation is keeping the 107s and upgrading to a more powerful amplifier --- the McIntosh power amplifiers with autoformers work great with the KEF 107/2, and I suspect would be a very nice match for the KEF 107. If you find that the McIntosh autoformered power amplifiers (which lean a little to the polite side) and KEF 107 are not lively enough, a Bryston 4B SST would also work well. |
I think a upgrade to a seprate power amplifier would be a better Idea and keep the 107. As I remember them they need some good clean power |
See the KEF website for more information. They have a very nice historic archive. And do contact them with your question - they helped me with info on my set of KEF C55 monitors. Very nice guys indeed - spoke to the manager at HQ!
Regards,
Dewald Visser |
