Kef Reference

[SteveR750]

I'm intrigued by Cno's comments about the R700, R900 series, and of course they are allegedly using trickle down blade technology. How do they compare to the old reference series, of which there are a few interesting used examples around tta the moment - what are the highlights out of the olf reference range: 203, 205 or 207? I have read on various (older) forums that there is a big difference sonically, and that the reference series are usually felt to be "better". Anyone have any experience to share, and how do they compare to ProAc?

 

[Gazzip]

Never compared either to ProAc.

The Kef reference series are more analytical than the R series and perhaps a tad more detailed, but I found the R's to be a more well rounded speaker overall. Bass weight, or lack of it, was always an issue with the reference for me, and this is an issue that does not blight the R's where LF is both rich and full. You have put "better" in to invertred commas in your post for a good reason which just about sums it up for me. Horses for courses.

I was definitely not a big fan of the Blade 2 when I heard them a couple of weeks ago. Once again I had issues with the lower end of the frequency scale where I thouht they were lacking true reference quality.

 

[SteveR750]

Guess I answered my own question...

 

[Frank Harvey]

The Kef reference series are more analytical than the R series and perhaps a tad more detailed, but I found the R's to be a more well rounded speaker overall. Bass weight, or lack of it, was always an issue with the reference for me, and this is an issue that does not blight the R's where LF is both rich and full.

The previous Reference (in my opinion) has never lacked bass weight (within their natural limitations of course), and the only time I've ever heard them sound lean is when used with poorly matched amplification.

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'm intrigued by Cno's comments about the R700, R900 series, and of course they are allegedly using trickle down blade technology. How do they compare to the old reference series, of which there are a few interesting used examples around tta the moment - what are the highlights out of the olf reference range: 203, 205 or 207? I have read on various (older) forums that there is a big difference sonically, and that the reference series are usually felt to be "better".

The R Series is quite different to the previous Reference range. I'd say the R Series is a more "pallatable" sound for many, easier on the ear. Don't be under any impression that the R Series is "better" than the older Reference - I'd still take 201s or 205s over any of the current R Series, for my own personal use.

The 205 is the strongest model in the range, and in my opinion does about 85% of what the 207s are capable of - the 207s are better for larger rooms, but do require better amplification (usually monoblocks!). The 205s are fine with most high quality power amps like Bryston, Chord, or Classe. Very few people have purchased 203s after hearing them in comparison to 205s.

 

[SteveR750]

Thanks David, I've been following a lot of older threads on AV forums where you have had this discussion.

In your opinion, how do the KEFs (both the old reference series and the R series) compare to the new curved SCM40? Also, where do you think the twenty/26 sits in amngst them?

I've not heard any KEFs (yet), but can do so at the same place I demo'd the 26s. I'm getting some SCM40s tomorrow, so that will be another box ticked!

 

[CnoEvil]

I'm intrigued by Cno's comments about the R700, R900 series, and of course they are allegedly using trickle down blade technology. How do they compare to the old reference series, of which there are a few interesting used examples around tta the moment - what are the highlights out of the olf reference range: 203, 205 or 207? I have read on various (older) forums that there is a big difference sonically, and that the reference series are usually felt to be "better".

The R Series is quite different to the previous Reference range. I'd say the R Series is a more "pallatable" sound for many, easier on the ear. Don't be under any impression that the R Series is "better" than the older Reference - I'd still take 201s or 205s over any of the current R Series, for my own personal use.

The 205 is the strongest model in the range, and in my opinion does about 85% of what the 207s are capable of - the 207s are better for larger rooms, but do require better amplification (usually monoblocks!). The 205s are fine with most high quality power amps like Bryston, Chord, or Classe. Very few people have purchased 203s after hearing them in comparison to 205s.

I have just posted something very similar on Steve's other thread (as I hadn't come across this in time).

@Steve

I agree with everything David has said....and only differ when it comes down to my own personal taste

Due to the nature of the 205/2s, I like them paired with amps that have a more sympathetic treble eg. Electros, high current Class A like MF AMS, MacIntosh, Powerful Icon Audio Monoblocks, Arcam (Class G) etc.

I really didn't like them on the end of Chord (too bright/forward/analytical), Linn (sounded cold and uninvolving) and Rega Isis/Osiris (sounded unemotional).

When it comes to amps, I have yet to hear an amp that the R Series sounds bad with (provided it has enough current to control them).

If the New Refs sound anything like the Blades, what you will get is better resolution than the old Refs, while keeping the more natural treble of the Blades. I strongly suspect that the New Refs will be less fussy about the tonal nature of the amp they are paired with.....but will still require high quality amplification and source due to their revealing nature.

I'm not really familiar with Proac, which I would expect to be less neutral than the old Refs but fussier than the R Series when it comes to the tonal matching with the amp ie. They sound great with Tubes/Class A, but "can" sound a little bright if poorly paired up.

 

[SteveR750]

Thanks Cno. The D18s tweeter can get a bit raggedy with the wrong type of music, say compared to the PMC 26, but you'd expect that given it's more than twice the price. Where the D18 excels is in it's detailed mids and upper bass, and sensibly controlled, i.e. not over ported bass. Mid detail is exceptional I think, as thre soundstaging / 3D imaging is excellent.

 

[jaxwired]

Thanks Cno. The D18s tweeter can get a bit raggedy with the wrong type of music, say compared to the PMC 26, but you'd expect that given it's more than twice the price. Where the D18 excels is in it's detailed mids and upper bass, and sensibly controlled, i.e. not over ported bass. Mid detail is exceptional I think, as thre soundstaging / 3D imaging is excellent.

I got to demo a pair of D18s a couple years ago and I loved them. And that's rare for me. I usually find dealer demos unimpressive. The D18s sounded excellent that day in that room. Made me curious about the brand ever since. I think of KEFs as being a more high tech speaker with a technically more accurate sound, but not necessarily a more enjoyable sound.

 

[iceman16]

Thanks Cno. The D18s tweeter can get a bit raggedy with the wrong type of music, say compared to the PMC 26, but you'd expect that given it's more than twice the price. Where the D18 excels is in it's detailed mids and upper bass, and sensibly controlled, i.e. not over ported bass. Mid detail is exceptional I think, as thre soundstaging / 3D imaging is excellent.

I got to demo a pair of D18s a couple years ago and I loved them. And that's rare for me. I usually find dealer demos unimpressive. The D18s sounded excellent that day in that room. Made me curious about the brand ever since. I think of KEFs as being a more high tech speaker with a technically more accurate sound, but not necessarily a more enjoyable sound.

Jax.. have you heard the Focal Electra 1028be?

 

[CnoEvil]

Thanks Cno. The D18s tweeter can get a bit raggedy with the wrong type of music, say compared to the PMC 26, but you'd expect that given it's more than twice the price. Where the D18 excels is in it's detailed mids and upper bass, and sensibly controlled, i.e. not over ported bass. Mid detail is exceptional I think, as thre soundstaging / 3D imaging is excellent.

I got to demo a pair of D18s a couple years ago and I loved them. And that's rare for me. I usually find dealer demos unimpressive. The D18s sounded excellent that day in that room. Made me curious about the brand ever since. I think of KEFs as being a more high tech speaker with a technically more accurate sound, but not necessarily a more enjoyable sound.

The previous Kef Refs are like chameleons ie. They simply reflect the system driving them...so can sound cold, but also hugely involving. It's why I keep banging on about the partnering amp.

 

[SteveR750]

From all of the reviews I have read, the ATCs are the most accurate, i.e. least likely to apply their own colouration, so even more "demanding" of the upstream system. I therefore suspect if the honest monitor sound is not one that I like (even if it is correct) then I probably won't fancy the old refs much either. I'm going to demo soon the R700 / 900 against the Twenty.26, and also the 1028be. The ATCs will be in my house for a couple of weeks so plenty of time to figure out what I think of them, meantime some more ammo to their ability...:

 

[Frank Harvey]

I really didn't like them on the end of Chord (too bright/forward/analytical), Linn (sounded cold and uninvolving) and Rega Isis/Osiris (sounded unemotional).

I like them on Chord. I find the Chord very clean and dynamic, not cold as some seem to.

If the New Refs sound anything like the Blades

They are...

what you will get is better resolution than the old Refs, while keeping the more natural treble of the Blades. I strongly suspect that the New Refs will be less fussy about the tonal nature of the amp they are paired with.....but will still require high quality amplification and source due to their revealing nature.

Despite them having a heavy Blade influence, the Blades are still quite a bit better than the current Reference - probably a bigger difference than old Reference to new Reference, in my opinion.

 

[Frank Harvey]

From all of the reviews I have read, the ATCs are the most accurate, i.e. least likely to apply their own colouration, so even more "demanding" of the upstream system. I therefore suspect if the honest monitor sound is not one that I like (even if it is correct) then I probably won't fancy the old refs much either.

I would say that the ATCs are probably one of the most neutral speakers I've heard under £5k, probably partly due to their sealed design, and seem to be miles better than the old SCM40s, which I personally didn't get on with much of the time. The newer ones seem to be more listenable, quite similar to old Reference in that respect.