This review page is supported in part by the sponsors whose ad banners are displayed below |
 |
 |
Naturally my concept sketches merely convey a general idea. To summarize the difference by counter pairing, it was music in the room rather than a window on the music. Involvement in the action rather than being spectator. The Kef plays it positively forward but not frontal. Some listeners might favor a more respectful distance. Others will regard the ‘standard model’ of soundstaging as lacking in grippiness by feeling too remote. Those people could really cotton to the generously open embrace of the Q900.
|
 |
Interesting in this context was the comparison to my Thiel SCS4 as another coaxial design - not because these speakers are much real-life competitors but because of their fundamentally different spatial presentation. The Thiel more closely conforms to the standard model and thus offers better depth layering. This was apparent on Sade’s “Sweetest Taboo” from Promise. The rain shower at the song’s opening was farther away because, a/ the stage on a whole moved back and, b/ the various distances within the stage were better defined as also on the background chorus of Howe Gelb’s “The Farm” from ‘SNO Angel Like You for example.
|
|
|
|
 |
In turn the stage of the Thiel felt more compact by comparison. The stage lighting was the more accurate but the overall scale was reduced. The Kef wasn’t merely more opulent spatially but also with individual sounds, voices and instruments. Valeska Steiner’s voice on “This is the Beginning” from Boy/Mutual Friends wasn’t merely closer up to my chair but also scaled more close up and personal which to me felt more involving. The emotional appeal of the Thiel was equal but achieved via different means. The voice was a bit farther away and smaller but beautifully sculpted – displayed to be nearly touched which to this lucid extent eluded the Kef.
|
|
When the action gets busy, the stage of the Q900 can become crowded. I’ve encountered more space between performers elsewhere. Even so—or because of it?—the Kef’s staging made a big impression. What else made a mark? In the mid/treble regions really not much tonally. The midrange exhibits a minor foible for the sonorously earthbound where male vocals are properly grounded and not every woman turns wispily elfin - but that’s a small tendency rather than character trait. On the very top it’s mostly neutral as well. You can find more air, more restraint, more spikes, more hooding, more silver and more bronze elsewhere. So I must confess that tonally my notes are very sparse. This indicates in the positive sense that the Kef Q900 didn’t attract much attention to feel well integrated, with transitions from one driver to the next smooth and invisible without irritation. Granted, at very high levels the otherwise smooth presence region gives up some charm to get peakish and overly fresh and forward. To thus follow dynamically recorded female vocals (Lisbeth Scott’s Charmed as 24/96 download for example) at max volumes can get borderline. But standard levels don’t pose any such danger of over exposure.
|
 |
Last but not least, the Q900 is pleasantly dynamic particularly on the macro scale which ties back to surface area. Attacks are explosive. Things don’t merely go louder but also get bigger. This underscores a greater spatial impression of the music. In an ideal case where the recording is right and the hifi transmits it, one really gets to meet a dynamically breathing stage body which isn't corseted but bouncy and mobile… far from boring. The ease whereby large dynamic swings translate is far from standard in this price class. Microdynamics are on target but don’t constitute any particular strength. Here superior monitors do as well or better but are clearly outclassed on macrodynamics.
Kef’s Q900 is a fabulous tower speaker once situated in the appropriate environ. That’s of course a quite universal statement true for any speaker but here of particular relevance. Should you own a system that lives on the bassier warmer side of neutral to want an antidote, the Kef won’t be it. If your room is smaller and the speakers will have to remain close to the wall, the Q900 could get difficult. But if you can accommodate a freer placement in a medium to large room, you’ll end up with a very complete speaker for a very smart price which offers a mature tonal balance and which projects an opulent stage into the room. I found the performance terrifically involving. The biggest shocker? That this is possible for so little.
|
|
|
Psych profile:
- Kef’s Q900 has potent bass but isn’t 100% neutral for it. The bass quality is feathery, fleet-footed, immediate and pleasantly physical and as such not tweaked for maximal dryness or articulation.
- The midrange is well integrated and more sonorous than lit up. The highs are neutral with resolution befitting the price. The presence region is smooth up until high levels. Only extreme SPL can get a bit feisty.
- This is a very dynamic and rhythmic performer. Even potent impulses are tracked with nonchalance, a very uncommon trait for this price.
- The speakers casts a big virtual stage well open in the front and laterally extended well past the boxes. Depth layering is good but not exemplary. Not only is the stage itself quite opulent, the same applies to individual sounds. The effect is pleasantly involving.
|
Facts:
- Concept: Passive 2.5-way floorstander
- Dimensions and weight: 1107 x 359 x 322mm (HxWxD with outriggers), 22.1kg/ea.
- Sensitivity: 91dB/W/m
- Nominal impedance: 8 ohms
- Other: Bass reflex via passive radiators, coaxial design
- Warranty: 5 years
- Website
|
|
redaktion @ fairaudio.de
|
 |
|
 |
