KEF 105/3... part of the Legacy?

[SimplySound]

I thought I'd start this thread to discuss a specific speaker of the KEF Lineage. We had the "most controversial speaker" thread develop recently all in good fun and I thought it might be interesting to see what the board thinks about what might be considered the most controversial of the fine KEF Line. The 105/3!

I recently posted a CL ad here for a pair of 105/3's located in NC. I thought for $500 it was significantly inexpensive enough to garner some interest. As I thought more about it, I decided that perhaps this would be a good post to discuss within the Speaker Forum.

So, controversial you may ask? Well yes, in a way! You see, the 105/3 was the very first of the Uni-Q speakers. It marked a dramatic shift of thinking at KEF associated with uni-axial speaker design. In effect they started thinking along the lines of that other venerable speaker company in England call Tannoy!

Now what I think makes the 105/3 unique and in my opinion extremely desirable, is the fact that it utilized the Coupled-Cavity Bass design started with the 104/2 and continued in the Reference 107. In addition it maintain the D'Appolito arrangement of the 104/2 but added the Uni-Q into the mix, thus making it a true 4-way as opposed to the 3-way design of the 104/2. There have been a couple threads on Audiogon about the comparison between the two and it is interesting to note the passion that folks have for each.

I've noted that the 104/2's are more prolific on daBay and CL. Does this mean more 104's were made (I think probably) or more people hold onto the 105/3's?

I've also read a number of disparaging comments about the early Uni-Q. Some say it never really came into it's own until the Tangerine Wave Guide was introduced to stablize the membrane. True or just heresay?

I'm thinking the 105/3 may someday be considered the end of the Legacy line of KEF's rather than the awkward dawn of the "new Kef" lineage. Obviously the 105/107 designs with the "Time Aligned High/Mid Heads" hold a special place in the Kef Lineage. Some say the 104 was a more "American" version built to satisfy the quest for "dynamics" so essential in the "Hard Rock 80's". And yeah we could argue about how the 104 and the D'Appolito" design fits into the overall Kef Legacy, but let's focus on the 105/3 and what that represents to the history of KEF.

I'm thinking that $500 for a set of "lightly used" 105/3's represent a deal that will make someone quite happy and could someday be considered a steal!

 

[SaSi]

Your comments are all correct (to the point that each have their own opinions). I find the model number "controversial" in that it has nothing to do with the other 105 designs.

A retired KEF engineer has commented in another forum, dedicated to KEF products of that era and before that, that KEF engineers had a tough time tuning the double cavity boxes to produce the desired result. The design by itself is unforgiving - in contrast with, say, a sealed enclosure - so by definition it's a difficult design and to tune properly - taking into consideration the spread of various components employed, from drivers to capacitors and inductors.

I've read numerous comments that the early Uni-Q designs suffer from various issues. One can read it that every new version of the Uni-Q design had significant advances compared to the previous ones.

One can only agree that every single approach to the ideal loudspeaker agrees that the mid and high frequency drivers should be separated by as little as technically possible. In that respect, the "coaxial" approach can only be considered the most complete solution to a known problem.

 

[Raynald]

I was selling Kef when the Uni-Q came out and it was a long time ago so forgive me if I get some of this wrong.

I recall the Uni-Q was launched on the C series. In my opinion they were pretty bad speakers and big step back for Kef. I will not lay the blame completely on the Uni-Q drivers. The cabinets of those series were quite thin and the front panels made of cheap plastic. There was some serious cost cutting going on in those models.

I dont remember much about the 105.3, it might actually have come along after I left the business. It is very possible they were great speakers simply because they were built to a much higher standard. In the previous generation you could not really compare a 103.3 and a C40. The C60 and C80 were the only lower end models with similar build quality to the Reference. By the time the Uni-Q came along they seemed to have stopped even trying to make a C series than was anything like a Reference.

The 104.2 is more common now because they sold boatloads of them. Initial price was something like $1800pr Canadian and they were indeed tailored much more to North American tastes and the perfect speaker to showcase the dynamics of the then new CD medium.

The 105.3 was a much higher price point speaker I believe and a more conservative sound balance. They probably sold in very small quantities compared to the 104.2 and even the latter's sales fell sharply as the price climbed over the years due to exchange rate fluctuations and very aggressive competition from local suppliers who did not have to ship big boxes across the ocean and sell through distributors.

 

[js1138]

I have a pair of 105.3s that I got at an estate sale and refoamed.

They seem a bit light in base and treble. I understand they were intended to be used with a Kube 200. I have Proton receiver that has a preamp out and a low bass boost option. I haven't tried it, but it's on my list.

I'd be interested in other people' judgement of their sound.

 

[SimplySound]

Good stuff guys! I know this individual is very active selling lots of different speakers and therefore take his assessment with a grain of salt. But here's his write up on them. Also note he was asking double what the ones in NC are going for. I attached the picture for anyone wondering "what is a Kef 105/3"? They are sandwiched between a pair of B&W 803's for reference.

 

[js1138]

Nice write-up, but didn't mention the Kube. It's a Bose EQ lite. It flattens the bass down to nearly 20 Hz and provides a gentle treble boost, or so I'm told. They show up on eBay from time to time.

This is an understated speaker. Definitely not West coast sound. That's good if you're into classical or jazz, but probably not best for rock.

 

[Inspiribomb]

I really liked the 105-3's when I heard them quite some time ago. They are large, heavy, and suck up gobs of power.

Not so long ago, I picked up a pair of KEF Reference 4.2's, which are very similar to the 105-3, but didn't use a MTM arrangement. The Reference 4.2's were one of the better speakers I have owned, and I have owned many. They now belong to another AK'er who (I believe) is enjoying them immensely.

 

[SimplySound]

I find the model number "controversial" in that it has nothing to do with the other 105 designs..

Agreed, it's interesting that they went 105/2 then 105/4, then backed up to 105/3... since the 105/3 was very similar to the 104/2 maybe they should have called the 104/2 the 104/3 to note it's "3-way" Characteristic and then called the 105/3 the 104/4 to represent the "4-way" aspect. This would have preserved the legacy of the 105/107 "headed" designs.

But that's water under the bridge now.

A retired KEF engineer has commented in another forum, dedicated to KEF products of that era and before that, that KEF engineers had a tough time tuning the double cavity boxes to produce the desired result. The design by itself is unforgiving - in contrast with, say, a sealed enclosure...

I can understand this as well and thus the reason for the Kube... now some who subscribe to the KISS principle would then conclude the Coupled-Cavity was a flawed design, but I think that's disregarding how hard it is to get a seamless response down to 20Hz! And at +/-2db no less!

One can only agree that every single approach to the ideal loudspeaker agrees that the mid and high frequency drivers should be separated by as little as technically possible. In that respect, the "coaxial" approach can only be considered the most complete solution to a known problem.

Not sure I full agree but you have a point... I'm thinking that phase alignment is more critical, but who says you can't achieve that in a "co-axial" as well!

 

[steve59]

I've had mine since new and they sound good with lots of clean power but in 89-90 the places selling them were hooking them up to cheap receivers and they sounded like it. The build quality and attention to detail is still unmatched until the price goes above 5 figures and the kube actually while providing full range(with serious amplification)tamed the treble 1 or 2 db where there was a slight rise. With modern affordable wattage these are a bargain on the used market. I still have mine and the last couple years rotated them in and out of my system because some of the things they do well they do best!

 

[theophile]

I listened to the 105.3s at a stereo show many years ago and they left me with a very good impression. I had prior to this had an excellent demonstration of the 104.2s with Electrocompaniet amps at a store. It was decades ago now but I recall what I heard and I liked what I heard very much.