In Reply to: "I can't see that HP and other reviewers had much to do with it." posted by E-Stat on March 3, 2011 at 15:43:26:
That proves HP didn't know what he was talking about-either that or you misidentified the speaker as Kef had later speakers which have 104 in the designation, such as 104.2, etc. Aside from several reviewers and myself, let's see what Paul Barton had to say about it."Barton: Yes. I would definitely agree with that. Can I talk about other speakers? It's one that no longer exists, but the original KEF R104aB was very flat on-axis. But they crossed the tweeter over way too high. If you put a pair in a room that had reflections, it was a very laid-back speaker. Very distant-sounding. Very pleasant.
Atkinson: Because of the lack of presence-region energy in the room?
Barton: Because the total energy wasn't there. The 104 was a very well-respected loudspeaker, and quite frankly worked well in a dead-end/live-end situation, which was at that time the way KEF designed loudspeakers. But it was very room- and placement-sensitive."
I agree with Barton's remarks on the Kef 104aB (and the earlier version, the 104). Upper midrange peak my foot!
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: "I can't see that HP and other reviewers had much to do with it." - Pat D 03/3/1116:22:02 03/3/11 (10)
- You know what - E-Stat 18:13:04 03/3/11 (9)
- RE: You know what - Pat D 19:26:09 03/3/11 (8)
- That's what make the reviews interesting... - mkuller 10:58:19 03/4/11 (7)
- RE: That's what make the reviews interesting... - Pat D 17:14:22 03/4/11 (6)
- If you don't understand ... - mkuller 17:49:38 03/4/11 (5)
- "Trust Your Ears" - kerr 07:03:08 03/6/11 (4)
- Straw man. - Pat D 20:35:57 03/6/11 (3)
- Actually, not a man of any composition - kerr 06:42:39 03/7/11 (2)
- RE: Actually, not a man of any composition - Pat D 08:24:05 03/7/11 (1)
- Ah - thanks! - kerr 09:14:55 03/7/11 (0)