Is KEF no longer relevant?

Is KEF no longer relevant? Only if you are tone deaf.

The new Reference Series in my opinion is one of the smoothest sounding most neutral and most realistic group of speakers I've ever listened to, with a sense of transparency and openness of sound rivaling electrostatics, but without some of the obvious problems associated with that driver technology. Their older reference series speakers still sound remarkably neutral and musical. I had a pair of 104.2's (which I picked up in the mid-80s) which I sold in order to get the Gallo 3.1 Reference. Although the Gallo is a very fine speaker, with some very interesting technical innovations, it does not have the upper midrange neutrality of the much older 104.2, with a discernible drop out in the presence region. Although this can be compensated for (using the Audyssey roommate equalization program), I overall found the result not as satisfying as some of the older KEF reference series technology, and certainly not as good sounding as the newer reference series, which are unfortunately way out of my price range.

Currently I have a pair of Reference 107's (purchased through Audiogon of course), which along with their amazing low end, have a typical Kef exceptional neutrality through the mid range, lacking only a state-of-the-art tweeter. If you compare the new Kef reference series to any corresponding B&W 800 series model, the Kef comes out on top consistently in any kind of head-to-head testing. It's a significantly more neutral sounding speaker system.

It's interesting that no one on this posting has mentioned the replacement for the Muon, namely the new Kef Blade series. It's got about the same absolutely stratospheric price, but by all accounts is not only their best speaker ever, but has to be in the finals of any competition for the best loudspeaker period. It has a number of very interesting design innovations, and a significantly revised and enhanced midrange/tweeter Uni-Q driver.

I recently heard a pair of the 102/2's with a subwoofer embarrass a $20,000 speaker. If you have negative conceptions about Kef, take some of your favorite materials and go have a listen to the new reference series. There is a reason why this series has been the most positively reviewed series in the history of this manufacturer. It's really an exceptional group of speakers.

Best, DW

There is an open argument about whether the new Revel series is superior to the new KEF reference series. There is little question that least in my judgment that they are right now the two best high-end lines in dynamic loudspeakers. Clearly, you won't be unhappy with either line of speakers. Obviously, planars and electrostatics have unique pluses in terms of the sense of transparency, and there is also the Orion system (designed by one of the original designers of the L-P fourth order crossover network used by most high-end speakers), but this system involves some rather large compromises because it is a bidirectional system, in terms of having the speakers 5 to 6 feet away from the rear wall at least.

The most interesting thing for me was to take a very careful look at the Stereophile review of the Kef 201/2 (http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/708kef/index4.html.) First of all, the on-axis response (averaged across a 30° window in front of the speaker) is probably (overall) the flattest curve that Stereophile has ever published. But just as important is looking at the off-axis performance, which is also the smoothest family of curves that I have ever seen (see figures 5/6 ). One of the things that most people don't appreciate is that if your off axis radiation patterns are also not relatively flat and smooth, on axis flatness truly isn't good enough. The off-axis behavior adds significant coloration. I believe if you look at the off axis curves of the Kef 201/2 and compare it even to the high-end Revel Ultima Salon 2 (available at http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/608revel/index5.html - see figures 6 and 7), you will see that the Kef 201/2 off-axis behavior is slightly superior (although admittedly Revel's off axis curve is also excellent, falling down only over about 10 K, which isn't terribly significant and losing points in my judgment for their less-than-great vertical dispersion patterns). Also take a look at the final graph in the 201/2 measurements, the so-called waterfall graph (Fig.9 KEF Reference 201/2, cumulative spectral-decay plot on tweeter axis at 50" (0.15ms risetime). It's about the smoothest decay from a tweeter that you'll ever see - virtually no ringing at all past 1 ms and not much ringing by the midrange driver either in its upper frequency domains. I've listened to the Kef 102/2 on multiple occasions, and I think it is simply the finest monitor (using the term loosely because it's actually rather large for a monitor) or small speaker that anyone has ever made. I listened head-to-head between this speaker (with a subwoofer) and a B&W 802D and also one of the Watt/Puppy systems, and I thought the Kef was significantly smoother and more neutral and simply more musical. I've also heard the 203/2 and the 205/2 but I've never heard the 207/2. The other floor standing systems also sound very close to the 201/2, obviously with a bit more bass.

An interesting question is whether the new Gallo 3.5 is going to force itself into the conversation (the very high-end elite dynamic loudspeakers conversation), at a much lower price point. The 3.1 (a pair of which I own and love), although glowingly reviewed, definitely has problems in the presence region around the crossover between the two midrange drivers and their quasi-planar tweeter. There is a definite and quite audible drop out of material in the so-called 'presence' region. The Gallo 3.1 also has major problems with vertical dispersion, although its horizontal dispersion is fairly good, again excepting some beaming by the midrange drivers around their relatively high crossover point. My understanding is that Gallo has addressed these problems, and the speaker is now going for about six grand (quite a price jump relative to the 3.1 going for less than three grand). With their proprietary subwoofer amp driving a second voice coil, the 3.1's get down to the 20 Hz range without any trouble, meaning that if the presence deficits can be corrected (and some of the various room correction programs on high-end receivers will mitigate this on the 3.1), this is a full range system without having to buy a separate subwoofer. However if I had my druthers, I'd still trade this for a 201/2 with a good subwoofer system. Just out of my price range unfortunately. My conclusion is that anybody who has not heard the reference series and who loves music owes it to themselves to take a listen. The only problem is you may go home to your existing speakers feeling a bit dismayed if you cannot afford them. (PS - the XQ series is not even remotely in the same ballpark as the reference series so my comments don't apply to that group of speakers which admittedly have some problems in terms of treble peaks)

best, DW

Clarification/Correction: I mistakenly referred to the KEF 102/2 instead of the 201/2 in the second paragraph. All my comments were about the 201/2 - the 102s were a much earlier 3-way speaker, and not currently state-of-the-art (although admittedly a fine speaker in its own right).