KEF R500 vs B&W CM8

[torikoos]

So I've just visited a local hifi dealer, and had a brief A/B comparison between these two speakers.

They were connected to a Cambridge Audio CX A60 2x60W amp and CXN media player.

What struck me was that the KEF's sounded more detailed, a nicer midrange and sound stage, while the CM8 appeared to go lower, but the bass did sound a little 'clouded' or 'wooly'.

However, I then noticed that the CM8's did not have their plinths fitted, appeared to be standing directly on a rather soft carpet, and from what I could tell, no spikes. The R500's were fitted with their feet and spikes.

This will probably partly explain the less than stellar bass response from the CM8's which otherwise sounded more even, if a bit unexciting in comparison. That however might be a good thing for prolonged listening.

Has anyone got any experiences with the CM8 and the way they sound with plinth/spikes vs none, and compared to the KEF R500's ? I have to say that the CM8's are a bit more room friendly in size, but the R500's better sound stage, would make placement more flexible and forgiving perhaps.

Thoughts?

 

[torikoos]

to the same dealer today. I decided to have another listen to the R500 and CM8 S2's. They had not yet changed the position in the listeningroom, and still connected to the same cambridge amp.

My experience was largely the same. The KEF's sound projection was great, giving the impression of a much larger room . I think this has to do with the dispersion of sound in the midrange of the UniQ tweeters. The B&W's were going just that bit deeper in bass, but not very coherent sounding, which I contribute to their poor placement and the lack of their plinths/spikes...

Next I was curious how much better these speakers were in comparison to the cheaper models.

Queue the KEF Q500 vs Bowers and Wilkins 684 S2. These were connected to a Marantz SR5010 AV receiver in stereo mode.

A surprise here: While the KEF Q500 had a familiar sound (much like the R500's) , the B&W's had a much tighter stereo image. Switching between the two I could just hear the lead vocals snap into the center of the stereo image, almost as if it was a mono recording where it not for the other instruments etc.

They did not however have the same bass extention as the Q500's, which dug deeper, but what was there, was tight and controlled. Very impressive speakers. The Q500 had a more pleasing sound overall to my ears, but surprisingly not as solid stereo image as the B&W 684 S2 counterparts. While it is difficult to point out a clear winner in this price range, as both had their merrits, I think in this test the B&W's marginally outperformed the Q500's. If they had a slightly deeper reaching bass, they would have stood out even more.

In the higher price ranges, the differences were not so night and day, with the R500's having the edge there. It may help that the R500's have a different driver arrangement, helping to tighten the stereo image up. Also unfair there is that the CM8's where not placed on spikes etc so that could have improved the bass response.

All in all, I can say honestly I would be able to live happily with any of these speakers. The more expensive ones are probably still the favourites, as they are also nicer finished, but the lower priced Q500's and 684 S2 have shown that you can get almost 3/4 of the performance for half the price.

Decisions...

 

[Freddy58]

I auditioned the R500's against the CM8's, and thought the CM8's were dull by comparison. At the same time, I auditioned the R300's, which I ended up buying, so maybe worth listening to those? Yes, they are a stand-mount, but they don't lack scale.

 

[torikoos]

The dealer did recommend giving the R300's a listen too. I looked at them and I can see from their size that they would be able to project serious scale for their size, stand mounters are probably out. My speakers will be in a place near where there is a lot of traffic, and we have some dogs who might bump them over.

While I could get rigid stands (including KEF's own), and possibly weigh those down with sand or whatever, that would bring the R300's price in range of the R500's, not a million miles of anyway.

Interesting to read you also favoured the R500's over the CM8's.

 

[Freddy58]

With regards to the sound, there was hardly anything between the R300's and R500's, in my opinion. The one thing I did notice though was that the R500's were a bit harder to drive - a bit more rotation was required on the volume control.

 

[torikoos]

It may also depend on the amp, but I understand if the R500's needed a bit more, there's more drivers in there, so there's a bigger load on the amp, thus a bit more power needed.

That however shouldn't be a problem with my Arcam A85, which has a contineous 85W per channel on tap into 8 Ohms. More than sufficient for the R500's and smaller siblings.

 

[lindsayt]

Thank-you for writing your impressions of your demos, torikoos.

2 things struck me when reading your posts.

1. Seems a bit odd that a dealer may not have set up 1 pair of speakers; the CM8's as well as he might have done? Did you ask him about the plinths for the CM8's? It's possible they may sound better in the demo room without them? Or it's possible there may have been some oversight from the dealer?

Remember, you're the customer and you can take charge of the demo (at any dealers worth doing business with). You should be the person that sets the listening volume, decides what to listen to, gets the dealer to adjust the position of the speakers if you think they're sub-optimum, plus you decide your listening position.

2. I'd be checking if the Q500 midrange units were in phase. From your description it sounds as if the bass drivers were in phase, but the midrange may not have been. It's possible a mistake was made with the wiring at the factory.

Phase tests are available from places like this: http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_polaritycheck.php

Also, reading between the lines, I get the impression that whilst you could happily live with any of them, none of the speakers have particularly blown you away - especially when considering the price of up to £1500 for the R500's & CM8's? It'd be a shame if you bought some spekers and then came back on here in a few months time asking for upgrade suggestions.

 

[torikoos]

Thank-you for writing your impressions of your demos, torikoos.

2 things struck me when reading your posts.

1. Seems a bit odd that a dealer may not have set up 1 pair of speakers; the CM8's as well as he might have done? Did you ask him about the plinths for the CM8's? It's possible they may sound better in the demo room without them? Or it's possible there may have been some oversight from the dealer?

Remember, you're the customer and you can take charge of the demo (at any dealers worth doing business with). You should be the person that sets the listening volume, decides what to listen to, gets the dealer to adjust the position of the speakers if you think they're sub-optimum, plus you decide your listening position.

2. I'd be checking if the Q500 midrange units were in phase. From your description it sounds as if the bass drivers were in phase, but the midrange may not have been. It's possible a mistake was made with the wiring at the factory.

Phase tests are available from places like this: http://www.audiocheck.net/audiotests_polaritycheck.php

Also, reading between the lines, I get the impression that whilst you could happily live with any of them, none of the speakers have particularly blown you away - especially when considering the price of up to £1500 for the R500's & CM8's? It'd be a shame if you bought some spekers and then came back on here in a few months time asking for upgrade suggestions.

Thanks Lindsayt, you are correct. I am in charge. The first visit was brief because they were about to close up shop late afternoon. The second visit I did mention that I believed the CM8 could be improved upon with plinths and spikes. He said he didn't fit them as most people prefer the look of them without, but could fit them if I want to audition them properly on a next visit. (I walked in on both occasions without appointment). It really was all about first impressions. It is a shame as some visitors would probably base their purchase on that first impression alone, in which case these CM8's would probably lose out to the KEF's (unless he's trying to push the KEF's as he has better margins on them maybe, who knows...).

In anycase as for blown away, no I wasn't. Impressed, yes. The R500's impressed me in the higher price range (possibly slightly biased due to the CM8's not being fully assembled), and in the lower price range, it was the 684 S2, despite the 'lack' of bass. Their stereo image was superb. The soundstage wasn't that deep however. the Q500's (and the R500's for that matter) had a larger 3D picture, but particularly on the Q500's, the image was not as defined in comparison to the 684's. If it was a phase issue, maybe I didn't check, and will make sure that if I come back to make sure which ever I audition are indeed in phase.

All speakers have their merits. I also believe that the KEF's may be a little easier in placement , as far as distance apart and to the listener, proximity to walls, toe in or not etc... I've had both B&W's and KEF's before. The B&W's have always been great for long listening sessions, the KEF's a bit more engaging.

I have to be honest and also say that I don't have a dedicated listening room, my room is our lounge, and it's a living space, which often compromises placement on speakers. That is why I say I could live with either of them sonically, aesthetically the more expensive R500 and CM8 are clear winners there. Overall, the R500's currently have the edge if I combine all those factors.

 

[tonky]

I listened to a Naim Unitilite and the dealer was using R300 speakers. I was very impressed with both. I took the Unitilite home for a demo and eventually bought it. It sounded v good through my epos es14 speakers.. I did wonder about demoing the R300 speakers at home. but really I'd maxed out financially.

It would have been an interesting comparison. But the R300s did sound very good with the Unitilite.

cheers tonky

 

[Frank Harvey]

With regards to the sound, there was hardly anything between the R300's and R500's, in my opinion. The one thing I did notice though was that the R500's were a bit harder to drive - a bit more rotation was required on the volume control.

I find the R300s don't quite reach the depths the R500s can, but then, I'm talking about electronic music, some of which has fairly deep bass. For me, the presentation of the R500s is a little more "together" due to a bass driver placed above and below the UniQ driver.

 

[torikoos]

Thanks, that's what I think I experienced too, in regards to the 'togetherness' of the sound image on the R500's.

Knowing (and having heard) that they can go deep is good too as I also play electronic music, or music containing synths on a regular basis, on the other side of the spectrum there's acoustic guitar such as Leo Kotke etc.

 

[Freddy58]

With regards to the sound, there was hardly anything between the R300's and R500's, in my opinion. The one thing I did notice though was that the R500's were a bit harder to drive - a bit more rotation was required on the volume control.

I find the R300s don't quite reach the depths the R500s can, but then, I'm talking about electronic music, some of which has fairly deep bass. For me, the presentation of the R500s is a little more "together" due to a bass driver placed above and below the UniQ driver.

That's fair enough, although I don't necessarily agree *smile*

A test disc I like to use to try out bass is 'Timewarp' on the Telarc label which features plenty of low-end rumble. For me, there was virtually no difference at all. I did though feel that the R300's were ever so slightly more willing, but I'm really nitpicking here. YMMV

Having said all that, I didn't try any electronic music, so you might have a valid point.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'd give an example of the track I heard the difference with, but I can't remember what it was! More than likely Boards Of Canada, but could've been Evil Twin by Modeselektor.

 

[Freddy58]

I'd give an example of the track I heard the difference with, but I can't remember what it was! More than likely Boards Of Canada, but could've been Evil Twin by Modeselektor.

I'd be genuinely interested to know what you think if you ran a comparison between those speakers, playing 'Timewarp'.

 

[rainsoothe]

Hi. I once auditioned the Kef R300, and they weren't my cup of tea. I don't know if it was my old Rotel 1520 or the Brio-R I auditioned them with, I found them really dull. CA amps, sounding brighter, might be the kind of amplification they need to come to life.

About the B&W 684, they're known to be lacking in bass - which you found out on your own. As for the CM, they are power hungry from what I hear, so you should be looking at the likes of Rotel RA 1592 or Naim XS2, Hegel H80, Arcam A29 or 39, that kind of stuff, if you wanna drive them properly.

System + room synergy is the most important thing one needs to consider, so, if you can, try to arange home demos. And don't restrict yourself to one or two brands when auditioning, it will pay dividends in the end

 

[Freddy58]

Hi. I once auditioned the Kef R300, and they weren't my cup of tea. I don't know if it was my old Rotel 1520 or the Brio-R I auditioned them with, I found them really dull. CA amps, sounding brighter, might be the kind of amplification they need to come to life.

About the B&W 684, they're known to be lacking in bass - which you found out on your own. As for the CM, they are power hungry from what I hear, so you should be looking at the likes of Rotel RA 1592 or Naim XS2, Hegel H80, Arcam A29 or 39, that kind of stuff, if you wanna drive them properly.

System + room synergy is the most important thing one needs to consider, so, if you can, try to arange home demos. And don't restrict yourself to one or two brands when auditioning, it will pay dividends in the end

It's a funny old thing, as I once heard someone say that the R300's sounded "bright". I can understand it when someone says that they lack top end, but I've found with sensible positioning, all the detail is there, and for me, the bass can't be faulted. I tried plenty of speakers before buying the ones I have, and yes, they were great at detail, but where was the bass? Of course, it's all about personal preferences, but for me, speakers lacking bass are a non-starter.

Incidentally, mine are powered by an RA1570 *smile*

 

[tonky]

My epos es14 speakers lacked bass with my Cambridge amp ( very spacious and clear - great depth tho)

Then I heard them with the Naim Unitilite - and I realised it was the Cambridge amp at fault and not the speakers.

Systen synergy is so so important.

cheers tonky

 

[rainsoothe]

Hi. I once auditioned the Kef R300, and they weren't my cup of tea. I don't know if it was my old Rotel 1520 or the Brio-R I auditioned them with, I found them really dull. CA amps, sounding brighter, might be the kind of amplification they need to come to life. 

About the B&W 684, they're known to be lacking in bass - which you found out on your own. As for the CM, they are power hungry from what I hear, so you should be looking at the likes of Rotel RA 1592 or Naim XS2, Hegel H80, Arcam A29 or 39, that kind of stuff, if you wanna drive them properly.

System + room synergy is the most important thing one needs to consider, so, if you can, try to arange home demos. And don't restrict yourself to one or two brands when auditioning, it will pay dividends in the end

It's a funny old thing, as I once heard someone say that the R300's sounded "bright". I can understand it when someone says that they lack top end, but I've found with sensible positioning, all the detail is there, and for me, the bass can't be faulted. I tried plenty of speakers before buying the ones I have, and yes, they were great at detail, but where was the bass? Of course, it's all about personal preferences, but for me, speakers lacking bass are a non-starter.

 Incidentally, mine are powered by an RA1570 *smile*

I'm not a "detail at all cost" kind of guy either, I like it warm and full. I'm not dissing the kefs, it was bad matching (for me) with the amps I mentioned. In any case, the RA 1570 is a different beast than the 1520, and the 1592 even more so.

 

[plastic penguin]

I auditioned the R500's against the CM8's, and thought the CM8's were dull by comparison. At the same time, I auditioned the R300's, which I ended up buying, so maybe worth listening to those? Yes, they are a stand-mount, but they don't lack scale.

One thing that surprised me the first time I saw the R300s is how deep they are. They looked the biz and heard so many good things about their sound, but our room dimensions couldn't accommodate the size; the consequences were I didn't bother to audition.

This is one thing that bugs me: Most budget/midrange standmounts and their size defeats the notion that they're designed for smaller rooms, especially if the amp is good'un.

(Generalising) you'll find floorstanders are a little easier to place. Some are shallower than their respective standmounters. Just wish more companies would design their standmounters or bookshelf speakers to be higher or wider rather than too deep.

 

[torikoos]

System + room synergy is the most important thing one needs to consider, so, if you can, try to arange home demos. And don't restrict yourself to one or two brands when auditioning, it will pay dividends in the end

I will do. My amp is an Arcam A85 with plenty of reserves for my room. I think it will be powerful enough to drive these, but synergy is something I need to test, and that will happen when I go in for a serious prolonged listenening session. I have others that I want to listen too, but my room size is such that they can't be wider than 18cm or they run the risk of being bumped into when walking past. This eliminates quite a few candidates such as Tannoy , Focal, and a few others. I did spot a few Dali's that have the right dimensions for my room, and I am considering listening to those too, along with Monitor Audio models (Bronze 5 and Silver 6's). I also like the Q acoustics Concept 40's, but they have that wide 'wing shaped' support on the back, which will be bumped into sooner or later, they just stick out too much, which is a shame as the speaker itself is beautifully proportioned and sounds nice...

 

[Frank Harvey]

They do take a little bit of setting up, and sometimes they can sound a little laid back. Using the outer part of the supplied bung usually sorts that out though.

 

[plastic penguin]

They do take a little bit of setting up, and sometimes they can sound a little laid back. Using the outer part of the supplied bung usually sorts that out though.

Mmmm... bungs. Wouldn't it be better to get the right size of speaker without bunging the thing? IME bungs do nothing other than hinder the sound at all frequencies.

 

[Frank Harvey]

They do take a little bit of setting up, and sometimes they can sound a little laid back. Using the outer part of the supplied bung usually sorts that out though.

Mmmm... bungs. Wouldn't it be better to get the right size of speaker without bunging the thing? IME bungs do nothing other than hinder the sound at all frequencies.

I don't like bungs either, but I find the outer bungs work really well - currently using them with my LS50s - IME I don't find they hinder the speaker in any way, just helping me place the LS50s closer to my wall.

For those that find the R Series a little laid back, the outer bung brings out the midrange and higher frequencies a little more, which may be the preference for some.

 

[tonky]

Hi David - I've heard both the LS50 and the R300 in seperate demos (different dealers). I was listening to amps at the time before I bought a Unitilite. I liked both sets of speakers.

What's your preference between the two and why? - hope you don't mind me asking

regards tonky

 

[plastic penguin]

They do take a little bit of setting up, and sometimes they can sound a little laid back. Using the outer part of the supplied bung usually sorts that out though.

Mmmm... bungs. Wouldn't it be better to get the right size of speaker without bunging the thing? IME bungs do nothing other than hinder the sound at all frequencies.

I don't like bungs either, but I find the outer bungs work really well - currently using them with my LS50s - IME I don't find they hinder the speaker in any way, just helping me place the LS50s closer to my wall.

For those that find the R Series a little laid back, the outer bung brings out the midrange and higher frequencies a little more, which may be the preference for some.

Nah, I prefer my speakers au naturale. *good*

When I dem'd the LS50s a while back the dealer said did I want to take the bungs. I respectfully declined the offer.

I'd rather have a speaker that fits the room size without any enhancements or reducers, even if that means going out of my sonic comfort zone i.e. brands I'm not familiar with.