'low profile' speaker suggestions

[lovelyhead]

I took a closer look at the "review" of the T101 speaker that hornetstinger posted and it seems pretty amateur hour for someone with the proper measuring equipment.

So it seems that all that was tested was a single satellite speaker on it's own, the aforementioned T101 speaker. KEF themselves make it clear that this is a sub / satellite package. These speakers were designed to be used in conjunction with a sub woofer. You would never run these speakers on there own without a subwoofer so why would you test them that way.

The next issue with the review is the way in which the reviewer positioned the speaker to test it. They placed it on the included stand and placed it infront of a TV screen for some bizarre reason. KEF recommend's placing the speakers as close as possible to a wall. I don't think the reflective materials of a TV are a sensible material to take precise measurements that are representative of the environment most people would use the speakers.

It seems many people also question the reviewers methods. Some quotes from the thread:

"I question the reviewers use of a TV as a nearby wall for testing, and refusal to properly mount them. I can't take any of these measurements seriously if he can't be bothered to mount them correctly."

"I've said it before, if they are going to use science in the name of the site then things shouldn't be done haphazardly just because it is fun to bash products or because it would be inconvenient to do them properly or a letdown to skip the test.

Let's mock the unscientific and then be unscientific ourselves."

"It seems like a speaker who's main purpose is being attached to a wall should be tested attached in the designated manner to a wall.

We can dance around all the different methods it can be used in but the real single reason for it existing is to be attached to a wall. If someone wants to argue that it has a stand and can be used in other settings then test it in both.

And since they (KEF) note under the "IMPORTANT" (section in the user manual) in bold that distortion will occur if you try to send bass frequencies to the speakers; were bass frequencies sent to it during the listening test? Are the operating manuals read before tests are done? It seems like there should be some level of familiarity with a product and its limitations before testing.

But, hey, why bother with looking at and possibly improving actual testing methods when we can make fun of anyone that buys it or likes it. Let's just wing the tests and proceed with the bashing."

"There is a bit of irony in badmouthing companies for not doing things right when the tests done here are questionable and yet the results are posted and then we move on to the next 'scientific' product test."

Here is the reviewer refusing to review the product in the manner it would actually be used in:

"Unless a speaker is in-wall, we assess its performance using stand-alone free-field measurements. This is how they would measure it as well. Erecting a wall in an anechoic chamber is non sequitur. This is no different than any other speaker. We can't pretend to measure it the way you would use it in your room. We measure it in free field and then make predictions about its performance in the room."

Here are some more posters questioning the testing methodology:

"They're being tested with a protocol that was never intended for them."

"Using the standard "predicted in-room response" calculations that assume a wall some distance behind just aren't going to produce accurate results."

"I'm not sure putting it in front of a flatscreen TV is acoustically equivalent to wall mounting. Unless your TV is already wall mounted?"

This is the sort of calibre of person that posts on those forums:

Well that explains why it's so terrible, they had a woman design it

Seriously though, i've met as many female audiophiles as I have unicorns, let alone a female speaker designer

I think it is safe to say this review (one of, if not the only bad review of the T Series) can safely be ignored as seriously flawed.

 

[hornetstinger]

I rest my case with the "arguing with the doctor" statement

You looked for confirmation bias of people that voices their opinions that align with your emotion that the product is a good one as you have an attachment to them

Since you have those speakers why not post actual in room response? £75 and you can do it.

Strangely enough my speakers are similar to amir tests both show 2khz valley

Funny that

 

[lovelyhead]

I rest my case with the "arguing with the doctor" statement

You looked for confirmation bias of people that voices their opinions that align with your emotion that the product is a good one as you have an attachment to them

If you look at the statements I posted you will see that I only posted the ones from people that rightly questioned the methodology of the test and didn't post any comments regarding the subjective quality of the speakers.

Feel free to find another bad review of the T Series speakers though to back up your claim that they are "objective rubbish" as it is pretty clear that this "review" is nothing more than a poorly executed hit piece from hifi snobs that turn their noses up at the idea of a thin wall mounted speaker.

 

[hornetstinger]

If you look at the statements I posted you will see that I only posted the ones from people that rightly questioned the methodology of the test and didn't post any comments regarding the subjective quality of the speakers.

Feel free to find another bad review of the T Series speakers though to back up your claim that they are "objective rubbish" as it is pretty clear that this "review" is nothing more than a poorly executed hit piece from hifi snobs that turn their noses up at the idea of a thin wall mounted speaker.

Try and find another objective review it that speaker

 

[lovelyhead]

I don't need to as I am very happy with the speakers and it also seems the vast majority of owners and reviewers are too.

It is you who claims they are rubbish based on nothing more than one dodgy review with loads of people on the thread calling it out as unscientific. If they were so rubbish you would think there would be more than one bad review after a decade don't you think.

 

[hornetstinger]

I don't need to as I am very happy with the speakers and it also seems the vast majority of owners and reviewers are too.

It is you who claims they are rubbish based on nothing more than one dodgy review with loads of people on the thread calling it out as unscientific. If they were so rubbish you would think there would be more than one bad review after a decade don't you think.

Nope. Marketing works really well. Do you honestly think What Hifi would do scientific testing and show similar results?

If the OP wants an accurate speaker, look elseware.

 

[lovelyhead]

Nope. Marketing works really well. Do you honestly think What Hifi would do scientific testing and show similar results?

If the OP wants an accurate speaker, look elseware.

Round and round we go. Back on ignore.

 

[lovelyhead]

@lovelyhead are you not familiar with this guy's contributions to ocuk forums? I wouldn't put much time or effort into engaging with him.

I should have listened to you.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

…It seems to me you are forming your opinion from a position of being an audiophile, owning top of the range equipment. I suspect this may be colouring your opinion.

Please don’t make that assumption, as I’m not convinced that he has any significant level of genuine exposure to what I’d consider to be high end kit.
And before you ask, I don’t believe that I own top end kit myself, though I believe that I’ve listened to some.

 

[hornetstinger]

Please don’t make that assumption, as I’m not convinced that he has any significant level of genuine exposure to what I’d consider to be high end kit.
And before you ask, I don’t believe that I own top end kit myself, though I believe that I’ve listened to some.

I think my stuff is pretty good. It's not Mark Levison etc but it's nice gear. Certainly better than anyone I personally know, most they have is soumdbards.

 

[hornetstinger]

Please don’t make that assumption, as I’m not convinced that he has any significant level of genuine exposure to what I’d consider to be high end kit.
And before you ask, I don’t believe that I own top end kit myself, though I believe that I’ve listened to some.

ATI power amplifiers good enough for you?

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

ATI power amplifiers good enough for you?

I’ve never heard them, but are you going to suggest that they will outperform amps from groups like MBL, Boulder, McIntosh, AudioNote, Vitus etc?

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

ATI power amplifiers good enough for you?

I’ve never heard them, but are you going to suggest that they will outperform amps from groups like MBL, Boulder, McIntosh, AudioNote, Vitus etc

I think my stuff is pretty good. It's not Mark Levison etc but it's nice gear. Certainly better than anyone I personally know, most they have is soumdbards.

Exactly, it’s NOT on par with ML.
More importantly, you appear to be utterly entrenched in your view that specs are all important.

Just what did you compare the ATI amp to before buying it? Anything?

 

[hornetstinger]

I’ve never heard them, but are you going to suggest that they will outperform amps from groups like MBL, Boulder, McIntosh, AudioNote, Vitus etc


Exactly, it’s NOT on par with ML.
More importantly, you appear to be utterly entrenched in your view that specs are all important.

Just what did you compare the ATI amp to before buying it? Anything?

Unfortuantly not many AV shops around here, so like most of my purchases bought blind, also bought some things second hand, which apart from an integrated amp that went faulty I've done really well. Also most shops into fairly mid range gear, especially for AV- don't have av processors in etc. They certainly don't stock big £1500+ cinema subwoofers

No, specs aren't all-important, however those tests can show up issues. Would you buy a speaker (brand and model name withheld from your knowledge before you see the actual speaker) that had the test results of Bose?

Probably would be good if worked in the industry have chance to listen to hundreds of audio products before buying. Those products you listed are too expensive for me. As I'm sure what I have is too expensive for others.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

So you're saying that you've relied on tests by other people, and that may well be measuring the wrong things, that you've never bothered to put the effort in to listen to anything genuinely good, that you don't "double blind test" things.

Just how on earth do you believe that we should give you any credence at all?
And don't you dare turn up here claiming to have top end kit.

 

[hornetstinger]

So you're saying that you've relied on tests by other people, and that may well be measuring the wrong things, that you've never bothered to put the effort in to listen to anything genuinely good, that you don't "double blind test" things.

Just how on earth do you believe that we should give you any credence at all?
And don't you dare turn up here claiming to have top end kit.

I'm not saying any of that stop gas lighting haha

 

[BlairH]

Jesus. I seem to have started something with my comments on the T-series.

I have some history with these. I got the 101s at launch (more than a decade or so ago) and used them as a discrete 5.1 system. Couldn’t get them to sound as good or as neutral as the old Kef eggs they replaced even when paired with articulate subs and a good AVR. Upgraded to the 301s; same story. Even got the cool stands for the surrounds. No difference.

Eventually, I replaced them with the Monitor Audio Apex range about 6 years ago (which I‘ve kept and moved into a few different rooms) which are very good lifestyle speakers; but not a discrete wall-mounted option. Otherwise I’d recommend.

I eventually stopped buying into the abject nonsense printed by the likes of What Hi-Fi. They are *not* professional reviewers. As stated elsewhere here; a speaker which does not measure well, will also not respond well to EQ by your AVR and therefore are unsuited to home cinema duties. Some speakers like B&W have a “house sound” which is fine if you like that sort of thing in a non-EQ environment (ie. 2 channel stereo) but I don’t think that’s what Kef had in mind when they made these.

A rare mis-step by Kef in my opinion. Again, it’s a shame; because their current high-end are up there with Perlisten, etc.

For a semi-hidden lifestyle system, I quite like M&K. I use the M&K S150s in my cinema room and these are insanely good for that application. They were at one point a bit of a favourite of movie studios, etc (having been used by Lucasfilm to mix the Star Wars prequels, etc) The MP950 is a slim on-wall version that uses the same drivers. I have these in my computer room. Really good off-axis response, so they EQ well with an AV receiver. I pair them with SVS subs, because the M&K ones are probably a bit overpriced for what you get.

 

[BlairH]

I took a closer look at the "review" of the T101 speaker that hornetstinger posted and it seems pretty amateur hour for someone with the proper measuring equipment.

So it seems that all that was tested was a single satellite speaker on it's own, the aforementioned T101 speaker. KEF themselves make it clear that this is a sub / satellite package. These speakers were designed to be used in conjunction with a sub woofer. You would never run these speakers on there own without a subwoofer so why would you test them that way.

The next issue with the review is the way in which the reviewer positioned the speaker to test it. They placed it on the included stand and placed it infront of a TV screen for some bizarre reason. KEF recommend's placing the speakers as close as possible to a wall. I don't think the reflective materials of a TV are a sensible material to take precise measurements that are representative of the environment most people would use the speakers.

It seems many people also question the reviewers methods. Some quotes from the thread:









Here is the reviewer refusing to review the product in the manner it would actually be used in:



Here are some more posters questioning the testing methodology:







This is the sort of calibre of person that posts on those forums:



I think it is safe to say this review (one of, if not the only bad review of the T Series) can safely be ignored as seriously flawed.

The only thing that on-wall placement does is reinforce the lower end/room gain; which of course, for this type of speaker is a necessary evil. The main reason why these are ill-suited to home cinema duty isn’t that they lack down-low (that’s par for the course; and obviously you add subwoofers to deal with the low-end anyway); rather, it’s that they have poor off-axis response. You want a speaker whose off-axis response is broadly similar to the on-axis response, so that your AVRs room correction can “flatten the curve” without taking a hissy-fit. Otherwise, the end-result just doesn’t sound good.

Coincidentally, off-axis response is something that the new Kef drivers are really good at. I’d hope to see Kef give the T series a bit of an update with that in mind.

 

[pioneer2000]

Extortionate “reference” branded speakers are a mugs game. All this talk of them “measuring well” just shows that you can’t tell a noticeable difference without doing so, and it’s simply to self validate the colossal waste of money that these companies are tricking people into.

 

[BlairH]

Extortionate “reference” branded speakers are a mugs game. All this talk of them “measuring well” just shows that you can’t tell a noticeable difference without doing so, and it’s simply to self validate the colossal waste of money that these companies are tricking people into.

Nonsense. Were that the case; we’d all be running Bose or similar.

We measure for the same reason that we might measure displays or benchmark a GPU; in order to get away from the abject snake-oil put-out by the likes of What Hi-Fi, etc. As for a waste of money: Not at all, it’s often the case that cheaper products perform far better than expensive ones. I’d never buy anything from the Bowers & Wilkins 800 series for instance; not when a mid-price Kef or Arendal will eat its lunch.