Hello folks! In my never ending search for the perfect sound, given my limited budget...
Currently I am using a pair of Paradigm Monitors I bought in the late eighties and shockingly they still sound great to me but am in the "upgrade itis" situation, amp is the Primaluna Dialogue Premium Integrated.
I am considering 2 speakers, the Kef Q 750 and the Tannoy Revolution XT 6F. Can anyioe advise, have you heard both? I understand that the Kefs are the absolute entree level, but with 2 kids in college, that's the budget boys and girls!
I do not have any experience with Tannoys; I recently bought KEF R-500s for $1800 (NOS) from a dealer. Audiotroy has a good point and at 42% off is a nice deal. I would agree that the R-500 does not have tremendous bass but what the salesman suggested to me was to not drive them with inexpensive amps because you will get less bass than if you drive them with good electronics. I have a Marantz PM/SA 6005 stack and also a Primare I-22 and CD-22 stack and I can confirm the Primares produces much more bass than my entry level Marantz stack. A case where a knowledgeable salesman/dealer added significant value with his system matching expertise. Hope this helps.
Why are you considering the Q series? I always thought they were a terrible design.
Correct me if I’m wrong… But when you’re using passive radiators, the radiator is recommended to be twice the surface area of the active driver, which would be fine if both the passive radiators KEF is using in the Q towers were in the same chamber as the woofer, but they are not. KEF uses one radiator for the mid-woofer (Part of the Uni-Q or what have you) in the top chamber and the other radiator for the woofer in a separate lower chamber, so the surface area of the radiators is equal to it’s corresponding active driver.
That aside, the passive radiators are both facing in the same direction as the active drivers which causes them to be out of phase with the active drivers. Then, ON TOP OF THAT, the two chambers are different sizes, so the radiators are reacting at different times because the air pressure is different in each cabinet. So now you have the two active drivers moving forward as a positive signal is applied to them, the two radiators now both move inward, BUT at two different speeds because of the different amounts of air pressure in the different sized cabinets. In slow motion this speaker must look like total chaos.
Now… In THEORY, radiators act as ports, not as cones, so, in THEORY phasing should not be a problem. But I just don’t buy it. I don’t see how any of this is a good design. It looks like a mess that someone threw together. The Q series bookshelves all look great to me, but I have no leads on their thought process when it came to turning those bookshelf ideas into floorstanders. Somewhere, something went terribly wrong. Or maybe not, maybe it’s fantastic and I just don’t understand it."
This is incorrect, The newer Q series Uni-Q driver is sealed(no bass radiator). Both bass radiators are now paired with the single LF driver.
I think you where referring to the older design which i agree wasn’t the best . But the newer Q series are phenomenal for the price and often on sale (20-30% OFF)
note* i only noticed your corrected response later one :)
I stand corrected. In reading the review Audiotroy posted the Newer Q series (50's) have a proper 2:1 ratio for the radiators, which now both occupy the same chamber as the woofer. Much better.
Why are you considering the Q series? I always thought they were a terrible design.
Correct me if I’m
wrong… But when you’re using passive
radiators, the radiator is recommended to be twice the surface area of the active
driver, which would be fine if both the passive radiators KEF is using in the Q
towers were in the same chamber as the woofer, but they are not. KEF uses one radiator for the mid-woofer (Part
of the Uni-Q or what have you) in the top chamber and the other radiator for
the woofer in a separate lower chamber, so the surface area of the radiators is
equal to it’s corresponding active driver.
That aside, the
passive radiators are both facing in the same direction as the active drivers
which causes them to be out of phase with the active drivers. Then, ON TOP OF THAT, the two chambers are different
sizes, so the radiators are reacting at different times because the air
pressure is different in each cabinet.
So now you have the two active drivers moving forward as a positive
signal is applied to them, the two radiators now both move inward, BUT at two
different speeds because of the different amounts of air pressure in the
different sized cabinets. In slow motion
this speaker must look like total chaos.
Now… In THEORY,
radiators act as ports, not as cones, so, in THEORY phasing should not be a
problem. But I just don’t buy it. I don’t see how any of this is a good
design. It looks like a mess that
someone threw together. The Q series
bookshelves all look great to me, but I have no leads on their thought process
when it came to turning those bookshelf ideas into floorstanders. Somewhere, something went terribly
wrong. Or maybe not, maybe it's fantastic and I just don't understand it.
IME, the Tannoys have a lot of LS50 strengths but with greater bass dynamics and extension. Soundstage depth is superior as well. Clarity seems about par. Another advantage of the the XT6Fs is they don’t need as high quality an amp to get them singing and can play quite loud with just a handful of watts. Their 90db sensitivity is believable - if it’s inflated, probably only by a db at the most.
I did experience some bass boom when they were initially placed in my concrete-backed-wall basement system. It turned out they were just on a mode peak. I adjusted their wall distance and rake angle and all was well.
As I stated earlier, I think their weaknesses are really only those of omission. The soundstage doesn’t extend much beyond the width of the speakers, bass depth is understandably limited to around 40Hz, and they don’t have the greatest treble "air" or note decay, but that’s really nitpicking for a $1500 pair of speakers.
My only real gripe comes down to cabinet finish. I don’t agree with reviewers that they can pass for $6K^ speakers. While certainly acceptable for the $2K price, the veneering could be a little better. The veneers are not book-matched (though not very obvious in the dark walnut), and the edges could be neater. The finish is not quite at the level of Monitor Audio, who really set the benchmark in this price range.
I have been going back and forth between KEF and Tannoy too.
I am leaning towards the Tannoy XT6F’s or XT8F’s because I
have heard so many good things about them.
Reviews say that they have incredible imaging, lots of bass, and a very
lively sound. The KEFs reportedly also have
fantastic imaging, but I have never read anyone saying they get big bass
response or “Lively” sound from the KEFs, which is why I am leaning towards
Tannoy. I like a more lively and edgy
speaker. The KEFs read as though they
are a little more tame.
If I did go with KEF I would either do the LS50s on stands
with a sub or the R500s. I think these
are the two biggest players in KEFs $3k and under neighborhood.
No the Q series have a veneer which is very polished it may be wood but looks like plastic and they have ridiculous bass punch that was our point vs R series.
Yes the Tannoys are very good and do tend to sound quite dynamic.
The new Q series are one of the most technologically advanced speakers at their price point and the new Q tend to sound smoother then the LS 50 but dont have their superor clarity.
So Bill Fail you failed again. The cabinetry on the R are fantastic.
Well said gentlemen, and as for veneer, I am not sure anyone can keep natural boards flat enough to make solid wood cabinets! But then again, I am not a cabinet maker!
I have the XT6Fs and previously had LS50s. The Tannoys are not at all aggressive - they’re less fatiguing than the comparable MA, B&W, Golden Ear Revel, Focal and KEF Q. And if you were to find the treble too hot, the grills tone it down without much detriment to detail. Just last week I did some A/B comparisons with Spendor Classics (what some call "pipe and slipper" speakers) in the same room, with the same amp, and the Tannoys were just as easy a listen for long sessions.
They also have plenty bass punch. If anything, it’s borderline too much with some music. Their dynamics trounce that of most of the competition, with plenty of speed - not surprising given their doped-paper cones.
I’ve heard so many poor sounding floorstanders in this budget range that the XT6Fs are refreshing. They’re not perfect but they have no glaring weaknesses. Their sins (if you can even call them that at this price point) are really only those of omission.
And to address an incorrect claim posted above by the Audio Nurse, No, the KEF R series does not have real-wood cabinets, they have real-wood veneers, just the same as the Tannoys. Neither has as nice a fit and finish as what you’ll find in Monitor Audio, but both sound better.
Both of these speakers are great, we are a Kef dealer and we were a Tannoy dealer years ago.
The new Kef Q series are very impressive in terms of bass response, imaging and they have a nice balance between smoothness and detail.
The Tannoy's are a more exciting speaker with a bit less bass punch, and a slightly more aggressive treble.
Personally I would look at the old R series which are stil better sounding and dealers are clearing their display stock cheap, we have Kef R 500 for $1,400.00 with full warranty which are $2595 new,
Just something to consider. The R series also has a much nicer reall wooden cabinet.
— one big caution.....their strengths (very revealing) can become warts if they cheapened by being paired instead with a receiver or similar low-fi Electronics
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
