KEF speakers from 70. vs. UniQ series
- Thread starter fonon
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Could be good/better.
IMO the KEF 'uni q' lashup tweeter in the middle of the Voice coil is a Horror.
Poor sounding, Poor dispersion and out of phase .. generally a bungled design (wayyy too cheap on the R & D).
Many other Makers have managed Exquisite sounding Coaxial designs, Far Far more ably.
Even back to WW2 era.
IMO the KEF 'uni q' lashup tweeter in the middle of the Voice coil is a Horror.
Poor sounding, Poor dispersion and out of phase .. generally a bungled design (wayyy too cheap on the R & D).
Many other Makers have managed Exquisite sounding Coaxial designs, Far Far more ably.
Even back to WW2 era.
fonon
Active Member
So, the good, old KEFs from 70. sound better?
f.
I would disagree. I think the current lineup (w/in the last 5 years) is pretty capable, even on the lower end of their offerings.
steve59
Active Member
the uniQ tweeter was a step away from traditional british sound but I think kef was changing their "house sound"anyhow, if you listen to the 104/2 and 107/2 that came out with conventional tweeters they were more aggressive sounding than prior models. The soft dome in my 105/3 uni-Q has loads of detail and can go insanely loud but required component matching to sound good. The later models do sound different and kef has been moving foreward making steady improvements but I listened to some floorstanding C series new 2 ways that were rockin out. conventional non uniQ driver they were cheap too.
Raynald
Addicted Member
FYI, these were the original Uni-Q starting with the C-35:
http://www.kef.com/html/ca_en/explore/about_kef/museum/1980s/C15_C25_C35_C45_C55_C65_C/index.html
No, not in the same league as the 103.2!
http://www.kef.com/html/ca_en/explore/about_kef/museum/1980s/C15_C25_C35_C45_C55_C65_C/index.html
No, not in the same league as the 103.2!
timofred
I'm just a garbage man...
We don't want you knowing how good they really are.:nono:
JimPA
Distinguished Member
I prefer the Kef 105 Reference over the Calinda and the various UniQ models from the early 90's.
SaSi
Seriously Illogical
When KEF started to build Uni-Q drivers, it was because neodymium magnets became available with 10x the strength of ceramic magnets - allowing a miniature magnet to power a tweeter.
In order to make them viable, they had to be built in large numbers and that excluded te Reference series products from the initial production.
The first generation of concentric drivers was more or less the first step into the technology and suffered from various problems both at the tweeter/woofer gap and at the woofer surround - the point where the surround ended on the cone acted like a refraction point.
Subsequent generations of Uni-Q drivers were obviously improved and have the potential to sound excellent. Take the LS-50 for example.
I have never had the opportunity to listen to either an early or later version of the Uni-Q drivers so I can't really compare. But the venerable range of B139, B110, B200 and B300 still sounds great when the overall design is well executed.
In order to make them viable, they had to be built in large numbers and that excluded te Reference series products from the initial production.
The first generation of concentric drivers was more or less the first step into the technology and suffered from various problems both at the tweeter/woofer gap and at the woofer surround - the point where the surround ended on the cone acted like a refraction point.
Subsequent generations of Uni-Q drivers were obviously improved and have the potential to sound excellent. Take the LS-50 for example.
I have never had the opportunity to listen to either an early or later version of the Uni-Q drivers so I can't really compare. But the venerable range of B139, B110, B200 and B300 still sounds great when the overall design is well executed.
But I KNOW ALREADY!!! I guess they are so good and such, that none come up for sale. I heard them in the early 1980's but couldn't afford them. I've just kept my 104aB's since 1978.
Which KEF has taken to 1940s Altec-Tannoy school, now using a compression driver-horn tweeter. Though they don't seem to say so, maybe lest anti horn audiophiles then dismiss the speaker out of hand.
Raynald
Addicted Member
And to make matters worse the first Uni-Q C series drivers were put in really lightweight, resonant cabinets with plastic fronts. Ugh.
One could as well say that an Altec 802-811 is a 1.75" aluminum dome mid-tweeter with a waveguide. Close examination of the KEF shows the tweeter has the characteristics of a compression driver, with the so called waveguide acting as a compression plug, phase plug and horn; it's quite similar to the Altec Tangerine in layout though it blocks less of the diaphragm, thus producing less compression: a low compression compression driver you might say.
Time alignment is another matter, unrelated to the tweeter being a compression unit.
In many cases waveguide is a euphemism for horn.
Last edited:
JimPA
Distinguished Member
Yes the listener will hear the tweeter before the woofer.
JimPA
Distinguished Member
I should have included this link to my previous post.
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=525178
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=525178
Interesting that this ocurred to you too. The engineers' denial might be the company line, you know that many audiophiles are prejudiced against compression drivers and horns. Maybe my thinking is simplistic but when I see a device that looks like a compression driver with horn I think that's what it is. The phase plug is certainly blocking the diaphragm and feeding into a short horn. I wonder too if the woofer cone is acting as a horn, as with Tannoy and Radian coaxials.
Last edited:
