Vladimir Filevski
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Messages
- 584
- Likes
- 800
lower treble
but it is so terrible, it had to be written twice
but it is so terrible, it had to be written twice
He says how you can't get good "high definition" sound from a modern TV, because they're too thin. In the next sentence he immediately mentions how this line of loudspeakers is basically just as thin as your TV. That's some top tier marketing, telling you exactly what to expect right awayHere are the engineers in this brief marketing video:
All due respect, @amirm but that short pedestal is for placing the speaker on a shelf below the TV but still almost flush to the wall behind. Something like this.As you see in the review picture, it comes with a fixture to use it free-standing without the fancy stand. So it is definitely part of the design to use it this way. As to the fancy stand, they need to document what it does. Without it, we don't know what it does.
That is certainly what they say in the white paper - "very close to the wall on the desk stand".All due respect, @amirm but that short pedestal is for placing the speaker on a shelf below the TV but still almost flush to the wall behind.
Here is the manual page. To me it clearly shows either place the speakers on a shelf or use the optional stand mount.Although the actual manual doesn't really say anything on the subject. There's no specific direction to stay close to the wall I can see.
I thought some brit tooth problem was an exageration of the Family Guy cartoonHere are the engineers in this brief marketing video:
Yes, indeed they are marketed as "satellite speakers" (though available separately from the intended sub)In which case they should be tested with the subwoofer that KEF has designed the speakers to work with. Otherwise we are testing and commenting on a part of a speaker.
In which case they should be tested with the subwoofer that KEF has designed the speakers to work with. Otherwise we are testing and commenting on a part of a speaker.
Depends on how you define broken. We have seen many speakers, some orders of magnitude costlier than these that has similar FR anomalies.But shouldn't that "part" be well designed? This satellite speaker seemingly fails in just about every aspect. I don't see how adding a sub is going to fix it. Help it maybe, but fix it no.
We can say, sorry our test system is not suitable to measure such setups.Anyway, it might be hard using the Klippel setup I guess - where's the "acoustic center" in a sub/sat system?
Depends on how you define broken. We have seen many speakers, some orders of magnitude costlier than these that has similar FR anomalies.
I am not being their advocate. I am simply pointing to the fact that those speakers were never intended to be used in an anechoic way without their stands and matching subwoofers. They are not measured the way they are advertised or instructed in the user manual. That is not fair reflection of them.
Will you measure a Bose satellite speaker by itself, without their subwoofer?
User manuals are known to be notoriously badly written and confusingly illustrated, irrespective of the brand - and this one is no exception. Exceptions are few and far between.Here is the manual page. To me it clearly shows either place the speakers on a shelf or use the optional stand mount.
View attachment 176394
EQ for KEF T101 computed from ASR data
Preference Score -1.6 with EQ 0.3
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.14
Dated: 2022-01-03-17:21:39
Preamp: -3.3 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 874 Hz Gain -6.14 dB Q 2.86
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5613 Hz Gain -6.12 dB Q 0.83
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1596 Hz Gain +4.53 dB Q 4.31
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 283 Hz Gain -1.33 dB Q 1.17
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3342 Hz Gain -1.42 dB Q 3.30
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 11049 Hz Gain -0.97 dB Q 4.94
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5573 Hz Gain +0.96 dB Q 5.37
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 330 Hz Gain +0.95 dB Q 5.93
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 645 Hz Gain +0.74 dB Q 5.75
EQ for KEF T101 computed from ASR data
Preference Score -1.6 with EQ 0.1
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.14
Dated: 2022-01-03-17:26:30
Preamp: -3.1 dB
Filter 1: ON PK Fc 6135 Hz Gain -4.94 dB Q 0.58
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 886 Hz Gain -7.19 dB Q 3.23
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1603 Hz Gain +4.50 dB Q 5.76
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 278 Hz Gain -1.26 dB Q 1.07
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 11180 Hz Gain -0.75 dB Q 5.72
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1072 Hz Gain -1.23 dB Q 5.99
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 745 Hz Gain -0.88 dB Q 5.96
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 619 Hz Gain +1.13 dB Q 5.75
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 329 Hz Gain +1.07 dB Q 5.86
I agree that may be the case for Joe Public but we are talking about someone who is operating a complex acoustical measuring equipment. I expected such a person would have understood what is implied. Not to mention notice the word "satellite" right in the name.User manuals are known to be notoriously badly written and confusingly illustrated, irrespective of the brand - and this one is no exception. Exceptions are few and far between.
Here we can see a side-view picture of wall-mounted loudspeaker (which is OK), but no side-view picture of loudspeaker on the shelf (or desk)! Good manual will show a side-view picture of loudspeaker on the shelf, with clear indication that the distance to the wall should be less than 20cm!
Also, floor mount is presented here in front-looking perspective (which is OK), but without side-view - so someone may conclude it is OK to push it to the wall as close as it can (where the low-pass filter in floor-stand Select-mount will damage the sound even more). And so on...
Looking at the measured frequency response, I can easily guess why.Seeing how one of the main applications are wall mounting I put the T101 in front of my flat screen TV to simulate a back wall. What I heard was the least hi-fi sound I could describe! I had to immediately shut the system down and move it to the stand away from walls which provided some relief.
Spinorama looks good with that EQ, but in-room response yields the typical “smiley face” frequency response for “showroom sound.”Score -1.6 ... with EQ 0.3
w/sub: 3.0 w/both 4.6
I didn't try to compensate below 200Hz which is the only way to increase the score significantly but then you would have little output.
This EQ flatten the PIR above 200Hz
Code:EQ for KEF T101 computed from ASR data Preference Score -1.6 with EQ 0.3 Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.14 Dated: 2022-01-03-17:21:39 Preamp: -3.3 dB Filter 1: ON PK Fc 874 Hz Gain -6.14 dB Q 2.86 Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5613 Hz Gain -6.12 dB Q 0.83 Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1596 Hz Gain +4.53 dB Q 4.31 Filter 4: ON PK Fc 283 Hz Gain -1.33 dB Q 1.17 Filter 5: ON PK Fc 3342 Hz Gain -1.42 dB Q 3.30 Filter 6: ON PK Fc 11049 Hz Gain -0.97 dB Q 4.94 Filter 7: ON PK Fc 5573 Hz Gain +0.96 dB Q 5.37 Filter 8: ON PK Fc 330 Hz Gain +0.95 dB Q 5.93 Filter 9: ON PK Fc 645 Hz Gain +0.74 dB Q 5.75
View attachment 176406
The other way around is to optimise the LW:
Code:EQ for KEF T101 computed from ASR data Preference Score -1.6 with EQ 0.1 Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.14 Dated: 2022-01-03-17:26:30 Preamp: -3.1 dB Filter 1: ON PK Fc 6135 Hz Gain -4.94 dB Q 0.58 Filter 2: ON PK Fc 886 Hz Gain -7.19 dB Q 3.23 Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1603 Hz Gain +4.50 dB Q 5.76 Filter 4: ON PK Fc 278 Hz Gain -1.26 dB Q 1.07 Filter 5: ON PK Fc 11180 Hz Gain -0.75 dB Q 5.72 Filter 6: ON PK Fc 1072 Hz Gain -1.23 dB Q 5.99 Filter 7: ON PK Fc 745 Hz Gain -0.88 dB Q 5.96 Filter 8: ON PK Fc 619 Hz Gain +1.13 dB Q 5.75 Filter 9: ON PK Fc 329 Hz Gain +1.07 dB Q 5.86
View attachment 176407
That's what I was thinking. Of course it was made to a price point. After 3 years of work, they probably could not afford to keep going and really get it right without charging 50% more for the speaker. So, after 3 years I'm sure rushing to get to market and building to a price point combined to get this fairly awful product. Now, they may still sell well. Bose was the pioneer in testing and figuring out that large amounts of the frequency spectrum can be butchered, missing or enhanced and the human ear/brain function covers it all up. Bose made a fortune for 3 decades omitting pesky frequencies that they figured didn't really matter anyway. As a company they honed in on how much you can leave out and still have a decent system. A pro tip is that you can leave out a lot!Some of their other products have high marks. I wonder if someone was forced to make this (i.e., no heart) or they were nearing a deadline (i.e., rushed).