All right guys, I think it's time to fill you in on what I've been experiencing with these speakers so far.
To start off, I'm not listening to these in exactly ideal conditions. The room is too short for them - in the manual they want 10 feet. Well, I'm giving them half of that. I imagine this means their tonal balance is a little off. However, I listen to all of my gear in this room so for a frame of reference I think it works okay, just not the best for these particular speakers.
Let's talk about their design. These are a pretty unique speaker after all, I'm not exactly sure how the bass cavity works, but it's definitely a neat approach to bass reproduction. I really like the midrange and tweeters being extended off of the front - smart idea! I imagine they did it for some of the same reasons they did that curved front on the LS50's.
Next, they're lookers. You may not be able to see it, but the veneers are matching. Very cool. The backs of the speakers are also veneered, which is a really nice touch. Overall they spent a lot of money on these speakers, they didn't cut corners. I imagine that's why they put the Reference name on this model.
Before I begin talking about the sound, keep in mind these are preliminary thoughts. I've had a total of 5 hours with them so far, which gives me a decent idea but not a complete idea. Not to mention they are in their original state and so there's a possibility they are not sounding as they did when new - but regardless, the idea is there.
Now on to the way these sound. Imagine yourself walking into a really classy restaurant, everything is clean, lots of class around, people are dressed up fancy, acting polite and professional, and its generally a mature, older crowd. These speakers are like that - they're classy, mature, refined, smooth, and stylish. I think these speakers really typify what british loudspeakers are all about. I remember when I visited Europe the biggest thing you see over there is that the culture is vastly different. They've been around a lot longer than America has, so they've got quite a bit of history. A thousand years over there is like a hundred years for us. I think these speakers and their sound really reflect the way their culture is over there.
I think one thing I have noticed however is that the sound is a bit colored. It's natural, but they color the sound I think to appeal to a broader audience. It's very enjoyable, and not in any way takes away from the experience, but if complete accuracy is your thing I don't think these speakers would fit the bill. However if you want something that is fairly accurate, but at the same time a bit forgiving and gives you an enjoyable way to listen to music with a lot of class and quality, these are most definitely an excellent choice.
The pacing and rhythm of these speakers I find is fairly unique. I'm not sure what it is but I imagine it has something to do with the way the Kef drivers were redesigned. Although they call them the B200, B110 and T33, these are new versions of these drivers. I don't know exactly what was done with them, but they have a different way of presenting sound but with a similar characteristic to their elders. I consider it quite relaxing, some consider it slow, it may be on the slow side but it's not a bad thing. It's actually rather welcome, it complements the way the entire speaker sounds in my opinion.
How's the imaging? I think the imaging is spectacular. I have them placed now in the sweet spot in my room, tilted upwards, using the floor spikes instead of the rubber feet. Great depth and tons of air around instruments. Placement is very easy, and the speakers disappear just like they should. However, I know I am not getting the full benefits here, and I imagine there is something being left to be desired in this small room. So, I will keep this portion short.
Now let's talk about the Kube a little bit since I have that too.
Before the Kube, you could really hear a diminished level of bass. A whole octave from the bottom register is missing, and it causes it to sound a bit light. Midbass is most excellent however - anything punchy, such as rock, will have no trouble coming through in that regard. Same with Jazz, but you will notice it with a Cello for example, that bottom end smooth bass sound just isn't all there. This really isn't a bad thing - I think unless you really do require that low bass extension, the stock 55hz is just fine.
However, if you are like me and you prefer the deep sound of a true full range speaker, then the Kube, at least in my experience, is a very welcome change. Many people spoke about how it would cut up the mids and highs, making it sound worse overall. I disagree. While I do think it changes the way the speaker presents itself entirely, I think this change is very welcome. Bass is what makes a lot of music exciting. Bass is
groovy, man! Not to mention it makes a speaker sound bigger than it actually is, kind of like over-stuffing a box or over-padding a room. The really cool part is just how natural and smooth the bass actually sounds. It does not get boomy, it is well controlled and pretty darn musical. Throw on Patricia Barber - Inch Worm, you will see what I am talking about! That beginning with the bass, you will really feel the presence of the instrument.
As far as the midrange and highs go, I did notice a
slight difference, but it is not enough to make me think they have worsened. If anything, they're a bit more prominent and it fits the increased bass extension! It was not a sound quality degrade, it was a presentation change. Depending on what you listen to, this can make an incredible difference overall.
Now since some of you asked for a comparison to the IMF's, I have yet to hook the IMF's back up (they are big beasts) but, based on my time spent with the Kef's and my very extensive time listening to the IMF's, the major differences are firstly the bass reproduction is far greater on the IMF's. That is to be expected. Even with the Kube, the Kef's get closer but the IMF's take the cake. Next, the IMF's have more detail going on in the mids and highs. Now, this could partially be because the T33 tweeters are degrading from the goopy ferro-fluid, so I want to mention that there is a good possibility the Kef's are running sub-par right now and this can account for some of these differences. However, the difference isn't subtle, it's fairly obvious. Next, the sonic characters are a bit different. I find the 104/2 appeals to a different crowd than the IMF RSPM's do. They were built for different audiences in my opinion and sound different because of that. The IMF RSPM's are built to be the best transmission line speaker using all of the then known techniques and engineering that IMF was capable of, whereas the 104/2 isn't exactly the same statement piece from Kef. While the 104/2 does come close in some areas to the IMF's, they are both different beasts in that regard, and this in my opinion is what places the IMF RSPM above the 104/2. Not only that, the 104/2 was a brand new direction for Kef, whereas the RSPM was a continuation of what made IMF so good, and is considered by many to be the cream of the crop for IMF speakers.
So that is where I am sitting right now with my thoughts. I plan to continue to listen to them, they aren't moving from their current positions for a while. As I discover new things about these speakers, I will be sure to post my impressions. So far though, I am very much enjoying the Kef's. Great speakers!
:thmbsp: