|
Recent Additions
Budget Components Audacious Audio
Loudspeakers
Amplification
Digital Sources
Analog Sources
Accessories Listening / Art Dudley The Fifth Element / John Marks Music in the Round / Kal Rubinson Fine Tunes / Jonathan Scull Special Features Reference Interviews Think Pieces Historical Recording of the Month Records 2 Die 4 Music/Recordings Stephen Mejias Robert Baird Fred Kaplan Wes Phillips Audio News Past eNewsletters RMAF 2008 FSI 2008 CES 2008 RMAF 2007 CEDIA 2007 HE 2007 FSI 2007 CES 2007 China 2006 RMAF 2006 HFN 2006 CEDIA 2006 HE 2006 FSI 2006 CES 2006 Forums Galleries Vote Previous Votes Dealer Locator AV Links Audiophile Societies Contact Us Customer Service New Subscription Digital Subscription Renew Give a Gift Sub Services Recordings Backissues More . . . Phono Preamp Hi-Fi Phono Cartridge Amplifiers Stereo Speakers |
KEF Reference Series Model Four loudspeaker:
The system The system used in the review of the Model Four consisted of the Denon DP-S1 CD transport, Mark Levinson No.36 D/A converter (the two linked by a Kimber AGDL coaxial digital cable), and a Jeff Rowland Design Group Consummate preamp. Amplification and cables will be discussed in the review. All auditioning took place in my (approximately) 26' by 18' by 11' listening room. Listening Bass was decent, though not remarkable. The top end was a little dry, and the midrange rather forward with a trace of coloration. Minor repositioning didn't really solve the problems, so I completely rearranged things, moving the KEFs to the loudspeaker locations I generally favor in my room, firing across a diagonal. Things definitely started looking up at this point. But I still did not feel I was getting the best out of the loudspeakers. It was hard to find things to criticize in the Four's mids and highs; they were clean and sweet (that dryness noted above largely disappeared with the change in location). Yet something seemed lacking. It was, perhaps, that "snap" that J. Gordon Holt refers to. Or perhaps it was simply a lack of air. The sound was not at all dull, but was closed-in compared with, say, the Energy Veritas v2.8 or the Wilson WITT. Otherwise good recordings, which on other good loudspeakers tend to be a little aggressive-sounding, were sweeter than I'm accustomed to hearing them. The Reference Four appeared to be simply too forgiving and polite. The bottom-end balance contributed to this—rich and warm-sounding through the mid and upper bass. While the bass was deep and powerful, it was not at all tight or well-defined—certainly no competition for even the hardly lean-sounding Veritas or WITT. These loudspeakers both measure and sound a little rich in the same region, but manage to grab hold when needed. The Reference Four was let down by its too-much (quantity), too-little (quality) lower octaves. I must add that I had the same impression of the KEF when I heard it, briefly, in KEF's own listening room in England. Big, full-bodied, and rich—but not very transparent. That extra warmth reduced the clarity through the midrange, also, though that midrange was otherwise very good. Perhaps just a trace more forward than I like it, but now very low in coloration, including the all-important vocal region. Imaging was solid—in the sweet spot, the phasiness disappeared—though not really better than I am accustomed to (most good loudspeakers image very well in my listening room when properly set up). Depth was good, though that combination of warmth and slight midrange forwardness kept the depth from being really notable. Up to this point I had used both the Levinson No.332 and Krell KSA-300S amplifiers. Things sounded a little tighter with the Krell, but the overall balance was not dramatically different. Making it happen Better. Much better, in fact.
Article Continues: Page 3 »
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

