|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.251.236.4
In Reply to: RE: "I can't see that HP and other reviewers had much to do with it." posted by E-Stat on March 03, 2011 at 15:43:26
That proves HP didn't know what he was talking about-either that or you misidentified the speaker as Kef had later speakers which have 104 in the designation, such as 104.2, etc. Aside from several reviewers and myself, let's see what Paul Barton had to say about it."Barton: Yes. I would definitely agree with that. Can I talk about other speakers? It's one that no longer exists, but the original KEF R104aB was very flat on-axis. But they crossed the tweeter over way too high. If you put a pair in a room that had reflections, it was a very laid-back speaker. Very distant-sounding. Very pleasant.
Atkinson: Because of the lack of presence-region energy in the room?
Barton: Because the total energy wasn't there. The 104 was a very well-respected loudspeaker, and quite frankly worked well in a dead-end/live-end situation, which was at that time the way KEF designed loudspeakers. But it was very room- and placement-sensitive."
I agree with Barton's remarks on the Kef 104aB (and the earlier version, the 104). Upper midrange peak my foot!
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 03/03/11Follow Ups:
as Kef had later speakers which have 104 in the designation, such as 104.2, etc.
You're entirely correct. After the original 104, next came the 104ab. Let's review your comments to which I responded:
My old Kef 104 speakers came out in 1973
You referred to the 104. I too, referred to a review in 1976 of the 104. We both refer to the 104.
"Barton: Yes. I would definitely agree with that. Can I talk about other speakers? It's one that no longer exists, but the original KEF R104aB was very flat on-axis.
You and I spoke of the 104 while Barton speaks of a later revision called the 104ab. Was there any difference?
It would appear that the change involved the crossover. Apparently, they realized their earlier error.
I agree with Barton's remarks on the Kef 104aB
Ok, if that is the case (as opposed to what you originally wrote), then you and HP are referring to different revisions of the speaker. Did that clarify your confusion?
rw
The difference between the Kef 104 and Kef 104aB is the crossover. After 17 nor 18 years, one of the crossovers capacitors went, so I had the distributor put in the 104aB crossover. I am quite familiar with both versions of the speaker. I certainly don't need HP to tell me how they performed.
The Kef 104 and Kef 104aB versions had a mid-range control, plus or minus 2 dB. The crossover was at 3 kHz. This of course means that the off axis is not as flat as with many modern speakers.
With the Kef 104, I turned the midrange control down to the -2 position. With the Kef 104aB, I turned it up to the +2 position, which Richard C. Heyser considered to give the flattest response. I couldn't compare them directly, of course, but I think I preferred the older 104.
If HP said there was a peak in the upper midrange of the Kef 104, I can only say he didn't know what he was talking about. The original Kef 104 was very flat in the listening window, no peak in the upper midrange. Indeed, peakiness in the upper midrange is something I particularly dislike. It was a somewhat distant sounding speaker, but I like that. If HP thought the sound was too forward, he could have turned the midrange control down.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
...everybody has their own opinions.
And that's what I believe this forum was set up to discuss.
I watched the videos of HP's Keynote addresses to RMAF 2009 and heard him expound on observational listening, something you have never managed to explain. If E-stat's remarks accurately reflect HP's review of the Kef 104, it didn't work all that well.
I think HP's keynote speeches were best on marketing and reaching out to those using the new digital technologies.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
...observational reviewing from my past posts about it, then you haven't been paying attention.
I've always described it as being an objective process, comparing what you hear to a reference - live music - and describing the differences.
Then adding a subjective component to it - whether it fits with your personal listening biases or not, i.e. do you like how it sounds.
I haven't seen that clip of HP in a couple of years, so I don't recall what he said about it.
Still the best advice in audio. How a component is supposed to sound pales in comparison to how it actually sounds.
"How a component is supposed to sound pales in comparison to how it actually sounds."
Who says otherwise?
Wilma Cozart Fine was talking about making recordings, not reviewing equipment. I have no idea what sort of controls she used to remaster the old Mercury recordings for CD or whether she ever used blind testing. I suspect any differences she was concerned with were well above thresholds.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I was referring to HP's speech that you linked. If the measurements crowd claim that a component should sound like one thing and it sounds like another, there's a problem with the measurements somewhere.
Sorry - how did Wilma Cozart Fine enter into the discussion? If you made an earlier point about her, I missed it.
HP quoted Wilma Cozart Fine in one of the Keynote addresses.
Measurements by themselves do not say anything about audibility. To do that, they must be correlated with controlled listening tests to find some sorts of thresholds.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Went back and caught that the second time around.
> Measurements by themselves do not say anything about audibility. To do that, they must be correlated with controlled listening tests to find some sorts of thresholds. <
Aside from our definitions of "controlled", we agree.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: