Critic's Corner

Discuss a review. Provide constructive feedback. Talk to the industry.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

You know what

Posted by E-Stat on March 3, 2011 at 18:13:04:
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