Kef 5.1 C1/C6/C4 speaker pack $398 [H]OT (way better than Energy Take)

0

0055

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
415
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0038JDJBW

Why is this a good deal? because its not a bunch of small ass satellite speakers like the Energy Take 5.1... its kef regular bookshelf speakers/center/sub but just assembled in a bundle

2 pairs of kef C1
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001HV20Z4

1 kef c6
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001HV405C

then one c4 subwoofer (rather overpriced but its more than free at this point!)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B001HX4CVC

all of these for $398... probably could sell the sub on craigslist for $100-$200 and put that towards a better sub
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
It's a 4" versus a 3" woofer. Not a huge difference. How are they better than Energy in terms of performance?
 
venm11 said:
It's a 4" versus a 3" woofer. Not a huge difference. How are they better than Energy in terms of performance?
Click to expand...

Maybe i put too much faith in cabinet size but the kef is quite a bit bigger with a large slot port on it, it can probably play lower and quite a bit louder. Basically i would say the kefs easily play down to 100hz +/- 0 db, meaning you could cross em over at 100hz and have them still keeping up with a good sub... with the energys gotta cross em over 120hz, makes a world of difference imo. way too much localized bass, plus depending on your sub you could have a lot of bass fall off when you cross it over above 120hz. If you NEVER upgrade the sub energys certainly wont be bad, but if you do then they quickly fall behind
 
venm11 said:
It's a 4" versus a 3" woofer. Not a huge difference. How are they better than Energy in terms of performance?
Click to expand...

That is a huge difference. Just like 5 1/4" is a huge difference over a 4"

~2x the radiating area makes it much easier to produce bass.
 
Size does matter. Both the size of the driver and the size of cabinet can make a difference. Yes, different materials and designs can somewhat make up for size, but these technologies will only go so far.

At this price point these KEF's do look like a good option for those looking for satelite speakers.
 
I'd stick with Energy anyday over KEF. However, this is a pretty good deal overall.
 
Have not heard these, but Amazon has a good 30 day return. No brainer to audition them if you needed a system on a budget.
 
KEF doesn't necessarily mean it's good but probably better than your average speaker. KEFs (different model to this) didn't sound too good to my ears in comparison to some other brands at the same price point. But this is a good deal for starters either way.
 
Well, looking at the specs, the KEF c1 speakers do weigh more than the Energy Take 5.1 sats. 7 lbs with KEF vs 2.9 lbs for the Energy. The c6 KEF center weighs 13.7lbs vs the Energy's 3.2lbs center. Also, the KEF c4 sub weighs in at 27lbs vs the Energy's 19.7lbs.

Ideally, you'd want to hear both, but, personally - if I was buying without listening I'd take the KEFs based on weight and driver size. Sure, heavier speakers may not necessarily sound better, but KEF is a pretty well regarded brand. Looks like a sweet deal to me.

http://www.kef.com/gb/loudspeakers/c-series
http://www.energy-speakers.com/na-en/products/take-classic-5-1-overview/
 
KEF makes some high end speakers (Reference Series) along with some mainstream speakers (Q series, etc). I would imagine the C-series here is their budget line given the price points.

I've never listened to the C-series, but I have a pair of older Reference 205 Speakers for fronts/sub and Uni-Q speakers for center and rear channels. The Reference series are outstanding although quite large. The Q series are decent.. I would say about as good as mid-range Bose speakers nothing special worth writing about.

The C series I would imagine are probably in line with the Bose home theater package things which is why it is priced as cheap as it is.

I haven't really listened to Energy to compare, but from what I've seen, Energy doesn't have anything in the audiophile department.
 
Kelter said:
KEF makes some high end speakers (Reference Series) along with some mainstream speakers (Q series, etc). I would imagine the C-series here is their budget line given the price points.

I've never listened to the C-series, but I have a pair of older Reference 205 Speakers for fronts/sub and Uni-Q speakers for center and rear channels. The Reference series are outstanding although quite large. The Q series are decent.. I would say about as good as mid-range Bose speakers nothing special worth writing about.

The C series I would imagine are probably in line with the Bose home theater package things which is why it is priced as cheap as it is.

I haven't really listened to Energy to compare, but from what I've seen, Energy doesn't have anything in the audiophile department.
Click to expand...

Don't know why you brought up 5k-10k speakers in the same paragraph as bose or a budget speaker thread (lol?) but just to answer:
Energy use to sell one that was comparable to KEF Ref series


Energy Veritas 2.4
Not as high end audiophile anymore but they still have the RC 70s and latest Veritas that are highly regarded.

They are all laid back and non-bright sounding.
 
Last edited:
They're still bookshelf speakers filling the role for home theater. Those are still too small even if they're bigger than the Energy take. That and the low end KEFs are nothing to write home about. Also, some of their speakers(some would argue all) are overpriced, whereas Energy ones are not as much.

And no KEF isn't the final word in speakers at this price, or any price for that matter....
 
chrnochime said:
They're still bookshelf speakers filling the role for home theater. Those are still too small even if they're bigger than the Energy take. That and the low end KEFs are nothing to write home about. Also, some of their speakers(some would argue all) are overpriced, whereas Energy ones are not as much.

And no KEF isn't the final word in speakers at this price, or any price for that matter....
Click to expand...

I'm going to be one of those weird people who care more about quality of sound than quantity. Currently I use a Klipsch HD-300 set that I got on clearance new for $200 last year. It's nice. It's small. It's just powerful enough to fill my living room and the sound quality appears fine to me through my Yamaha 7.1 receiver (I got the what I thought was the best receiver I could find for under $500, and I think it does well).

A lot of people in this thread are talking about volume, but volume means jack squat to me because I don't want my ears to bleed - and I mostly listen to classical and jazz anyway.

So, for their size, are there many brands that have better quality of sound?
 
kemist1117 said:
That is a huge difference. Just like 5 1/4" is a huge difference over a 4"

~2x the radiating area makes it much easier to produce bass.
Click to expand...

You have to move about 10x as much air to go one octave deeper, so you have to do some math. You might hear the difference between 4" and 3" or 5 1/4 ad 4", but it's not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm sure that for the same price you could find 6.5inchers or even 8, but so what? The sub is picking up the bass. The question is about overall sound quality, now how well the satellite woofer fills in the midbass. And there are many things to describe about sound quality.
 
kemist1117 said:
That is a huge difference. Just like 5 1/4" is a huge difference over a 4"

~2x the radiating area makes it much easier to produce bass.
Click to expand...

You have to move about 10x as much air to go one octave deeper, so you have to do some math on the surface area and excursion. You might hear the difference between 4" and 3" or 5 1/4 ad 4", but it's not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm sure that for the same price you could find 6.5inchers or even 8, but so what? The sub is picking up the bass. The question is about overall sound quality, now how well the satellite woofer fills in the midbass. And there are many things to describe about sound quality.
 
venm11 said:
You have to move about 10x as much air to go one octave deeper, so you have to do some math. You might hear the difference between 4" and 3" or 5 1/4 ad 4", but it's not that significant in the grand scheme of things.

I'm sure that for the same price you could find 6.5inchers or even 8, but so what? The sub is picking up the bass. The question is about overall sound quality, now how well the satellite woofer fills in the midbass. And there are many things to describe about sound quality.
Click to expand...

Yes but typically a higher xmax, bigger vc/higher power handling also comes along with an increase in cone size, so its also not just cut and dry regarding the 2x cone area. A 3" speaker isn't even a midrange on some high end speakers and you're trying to tell me its acceptable as a woofer on the energys?

The sub is picking up the bass (down to 40hz? laugh, shouldn't this really be called a woofer?) and with the energys its picking up well above midbass as well since they have to be crossed at 120-150hz for there not to be a gaping hole. So you are getting into localizable subwoofer issues. Ideally you are crossing over at least at 80hz, but ideally lower, as even at 80hz you are getting to the point where some people can localize the sub fairly easily.

Just like you are saying there are plenty of attributes that contribute to or result in good sound quality I can tell you 100% without a doubt a 3" woofer is not one of them.
 
kemist1117 said:
Yes but typically a higher xmax, bigger vc/higher power handling also comes along with an increase in cone size, so its also not just cut and dry regarding the 2x cone area. A 3" speaker isn't even a midrange on some high end speakers and you're trying to tell me its acceptable as a woofer on the energys?

The sub is picking up the bass (down to 40hz? laugh, shouldn't this really be called a woofer?) and with the energys its picking up well above midbass as well since they have to be crossed at 120-150hz for there not to be a gaping hole. So you are getting into localizable subwoofer issues. Ideally you are crossing over at least at 80hz, but ideally lower, as even at 80hz you are getting to the point where some people can localize the sub fairly easily.

Just like you are saying there are plenty of attributes that contribute to or result in good sound quality I can tell you 100% without a doubt a 3" woofer is not one of them.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be crossed at 150hz, that's just a rule of thumb regarding localizing bass. There are lots of other factors, like sub placement, the way the sub+sats integrate (eg, same phase and timing at the xover freqs). A lot of satellites and subs break up and make funny noises which ruin the soundstage anyway. So with a quality system, you could actually go quite a bit higher than 150hz without detrimental effects.

If the 4" driver were from the same manufacturer and line as the 3", then yes, there would be slightly fuller midbass. But... that's one thing. A 3" driver from another mfr could easily be superior in that respect, or simply produce those frequencies in a superior fashion. My desktop satellites have 2" full range drivers and I would put it up against either of these systems for overall sound quality (not output levels, and given the right source).
 
venm11 said:
They don't have to be crossed at 150hz, that's just a rule of thumb regarding localizing bass. There are lots of other factors, like sub placement, the way the sub+sats integrate (eg, same phase and timing at the xover freqs). A lot of satellites and subs break up and make funny noises which ruin the soundstage anyway. So with a quality system, you could actually go quite a bit higher than 150hz without detrimental effects.

If the 4" driver were from the same manufacturer and line as the 3", then yes, there would be slightly fuller midbass. But... that's one thing. A 3" driver from another mfr could easily be superior in that respect, or simply produce those frequencies in a superior fashion. My desktop satellites have 2" full range drivers and I would put it up against either of these systems for overall sound quality (not output levels, and given the right source).
Click to expand...

Don't want to keep getting into this, but yes the energys do have to be crossed at 150hz because the 3" woofer can't go any lower, the actual rule of thumb regarding localized bass is 80hz as i mentioned before. If you cross the sub lower than 150hz you will have a giant hole in your frequency response where the 3" driver can't make any sound. And while what you are saying is true to an extent, regarding the other factors, you can't really be arguing that the quality of the energy's is such that they will integrate seamlessly. They use a shit tier 8 inch sub, which is going to make ungainly noises, and which is to be expected for the price point.

Again what you are saying regarding different drivers is true to an extent. But it isn't the case here. energy themselves list the take 5 as having a -3db point at 115hz which means it begins rolling off a whole lot earlier. The Kefs have a 4" driver in a larger cabinet with a slot port and list the -3db at 65 hz, which again its rolling off way before that.

And if you are really arguing that your full range 2" satellites have sound quality equal to a decent budget 2way speaker than its not worth discussing this anymore, you even have to list a caveat of low spl and limited FR content. Basically, while you may have a very good 2" driver you do not have a very good speaker.
 
kemist1117 said:
Don't want to keep getting into this, but yes the energys do have to be crossed at 150hz because the 3" woofer can't go any lower, the actual rule of thumb regarding localized bass is 80hz as i mentioned before. If you cross the sub lower than 150hz you will have a giant hole in your frequency response where the 3" driver can't make any sound. And while what you are saying is true to an extent, regarding the other factors, you can't really be arguing that the quality of the energy's is such that they will integrate seamlessly. They use a shit tier 8 inch sub, which is going to make ungainly noises, and which is to be expected for the price point.

Again what you are saying regarding different drivers is true to an extent. But it isn't the case here. energy themselves list the take 5 as having a -3db point at 115hz which means it begins rolling off a whole lot earlier. The Kefs have a 4" driver in a larger cabinet with a slot port and list the -3db at 65 hz, which again its rolling off way before that.

And if you are really arguing that your full range 2" satellites have sound quality equal to a decent budget 2way speaker than its not worth discussing this anymore, you even have to list a caveat of low spl and limited FR content. Basically, while you may have a very good 2" driver you do not have a very good speaker.
Click to expand...

How do you know the quality of my drivers or "speaker" from their size?

Size *or* rolloff of the mid-drivers simply doesn't determine the quality of the midbass, nor of the whole system. The only way that could be a deciding point in buying speakers unseen is if you had adequate freq resp graphs of both systems and were disproportionately focused on any midbass hole. Which might not be significant for reasons fore-mentioned.

Actually, my teensie desk system got top reviews by absolute sound and others; was sold in world-class shops (eg sound by singer) alongside sat systems with much larger drivers. There's a certain street cred in both those things. This thing carried it's own with systems with traditionally larger drivers, and in many ways sounded better. The reason was that the 2" driver had a unique non-resonant driver design that transmitted midbass noises far more cleanly than they did with their 3-5" drivers. And it has dense cast enclosures, an unique processor/xover/amp, a very clean sub, and some other stuff. It's very good -- and driver size had very little to do with it.
 
Last edited:
I think the entire argument can be resolved by asking what you are listening to.

Garbage in, garbage out.
 
venm11 said:
How do you know the quality of my drivers or "speaker" from their size?

Size *or* rolloff of the mid-drivers simply doesn't determine the quality of the midbass, nor of the whole system. The only way that could be a deciding point in buying speakers unseen is if you had adequate freq resp graphs of both systems and were disproportionately focused on any midbass hole. Which might not be significant for reasons fore-mentioned.

Actually, my teensie desk system got top reviews by absolute sound and others; was sold in world-class shops (eg sound by singer) alongside sat systems with much larger drivers. There's a certain street cred in both those things. This thing carried it's own with systems with traditionally larger drivers, and in many ways sounded better. The reason was that the 2" driver had a unique non-resonant driver design that transmitted midbass noises far more cleanly than they did with their 3-5" drivers. And it has dense cast enclosures, an unique processor/xover/amp, a very clean sub, and some other stuff. It's very good -- and driver size had very little to do with it.
Click to expand...

Is it really high quality mid bass even if it isn't present? i.e. rollsoff

It's simply a matter of physics; you need multiple drivers of different designs to adequately cover the full range of human hearing (for these purposes, read 20hz-20khz) with high quality and especially with high spl. If you would like to focus on 80% of the FR at high quality that is fine. I am simply arguing that there is still that 20% that you are ignoring, by virtue of which i would argue you really aren't producing your sound at very high quality.
 
Most people wouldn't worry about the high range if they knew they couldn't hear it.

I wasn't aware of it myself until this year, but I am no longer able to hear above 12.5kHz.
 
This may offer a bit of insight as to the quality of the deal: check out the price history here.
 
kemist1117 said:
Is it really high quality mid bass even if it isn't present? i.e. rollsoff

It's simply a matter of physics; you need multiple drivers of different designs to adequately cover the full range of human hearing (for these purposes, read 20hz-20khz) with high quality and especially with high spl. If you would like to focus on 80% of the FR at high quality that is fine. I am simply arguing that there is still that 20% that you are ignoring, by virtue of which i would argue you really aren't producing your sound at very high quality.
Click to expand...

You only need more than one driver type if the drivers' quality cannot achieve the full spectrum without breaking up. There are plenty of excellent 1-way systems ranging from 5" horn-loaded full-range drivers to large electrostatics. These aren't in the same price range, but it shows you what a wild variable technology is.

For example: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gemmeaudio2/vivace.html

So, the limitations of speaker size seem a bit of a preconception. The effects of enclosure size alone tell you that. But we're also talking about a sub here, and that can easily fill any FR gap; the ability of the system to hide the sub mitigates limitations with the xover frequency. That's another subject, but it means that the crossover frequency can go up, and rolloff of the sats matters a lot less. Ergo, the speaker size of the satellites don't have that much impact, especially in the context of the whole system.

Regarding 20%... that would be two whole octaves missing. That doesn't sound right - that's a large gap, even at -3db. Maybe 5-10% ? And that says little else about the quality of the speakers. If we consider 2% THD to be excellent and 10% to be unacceptable, and the 20-100hz and 400hz-20khz ranges are producing 8%, what does that say about how good the system is? Does that have anything to do with speaker size? Not that much either. And so on for many other characteristics.

Ultimately, it's dubious to buy, compare or even recommend a system based on driver size, especially when that's just one in the system.
 
Last edited:
TIGR said:
This may offer a bit of insight as to the quality of the deal: check out the price history here.
Click to expand...

This shows the market correcting the price to 1/3rd what it was [presumably] targeted at only three months ago. This suggests a few things, but nothing either way about quality or value.
 
venm11 said:
This shows the market correcting the price to 1/3rd what it was [presumably] targeted at only three months ago. This suggests a few things, but nothing either way about quality or value.
Click to expand...

Above the graph on the right side, next to range, select "All". This extends the range beyond three months. I believe this does offer some insights into the quality of the deal as I stated. I said nothing about the quality of the product. Price history like this can help put things into perspective.

If you personally do not wish to use it, then don't. But it has saved me from making bad buys in the past.
 
For those that actually cares about the deal, Amazon's showing this @ $378.61 atm, and FS at 85lbs+ must be saving a pretty penny (Amazon ftw). As far as the price drops are concerned, 2011 models on the way perhaps?
 
TIGR said:
Above the graph on the right side, next to range, select "All". This extends the range beyond three months. I believe this does offer some insights into the quality of the deal as I stated. I said nothing about the quality of the product. Price history like this can help put things into perspective.

If you personally do not wish to use it, then don't. But it has saved me from making bad buys in the past.
Click to expand...

Cool, i was wondering about that. Interesting tool. When were these speakers actually introduced? The large square sections of the graph are hard to interpret - it looks like there is insufficient data.
 
venm11 said:
You only need more than one driver type if the drivers' quality cannot achieve the full spectrum without breaking up. There are plenty of excellent 1-way systems ranging from 5" horn-loaded full-range drivers to large electrostatics. These aren't in the same price range, but it shows you what a wild variable technology is.

For example: http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/gemmeaudio2/vivace.html

So, the limitations of speaker size seem a bit of a preconception. The effects of enclosure size alone tell you that. But we're also talking about a sub here, and that can easily fill any FR gap; the ability of the system to hide the sub mitigates limitations with the xover frequency. That's another subject, but it means that the crossover frequency can go up, and rolloff of the sats matters a lot less. Ergo, the speaker size of the satellites don't have that much impact, especially in the context of the whole system.

Regarding 20%... that would be two whole octaves missing. That doesn't sound right - that's a large gap, even at -3db. Maybe 5-10% ? And that says little else about the quality of the speakers. If we consider 2% THD to be excellent and 10% to be unacceptable, and the 20-100hz and 400hz-20khz ranges are producing 8%, what does that say about how good the system is? Does that have anything to do with speaker size? Not that much either. And so on for many other characteristics.

Ultimately, it's dubious to buy, compare or even recommend a system based on driver size, especially when that's just one in the system.
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you say, but disagree in certain areas, such as integrating a sub to micro-sats, but that is an IMO thing. Also i dont have preconceptions regarding driver size for the most part. I'm just being realistic regarding what these manufacturers are putting into these budget speakers, and with that in mind, you are always going to have better bass response with a larger woofer and larger cabinet (again you can pay to bend physics but then we are getting into spending lots of $$$). Similarly, while $$$ can make a single driver be decent as a full-ranger, their are better and cheaper ways to skin the cat, such as using 2,3,4 drivers, again IMO. Lets just agree to disagree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top