Well, after going back and listening to all the videos with the 350s, including the one with the R200s and 350s driven by the NAD 316, and two I somehow missed with the 350s and Metas driven by the NAD 368, the 350s have quickly become my favorite speaker here. Their slightly less forward mids than the R200s and Metas makes them a little nore forgiving without soundind recessed at all, and, although the R200s and Metas are both so well balanced, I like the balance of the Q350s just as much or more, as they seem to sound bigger and punchier than either, and have more airy extended highs than the Polks, and even the Metas, to my ears, making them both sound flatter and more two dimensional to me, while the voices and instruments on the 350s sound like they're floating in space, even on my headphones. I'm really smitten and am considering trying to find $499 to get them, as I've always wanted to try a KEF Q series speaker. I just don't know if they'll retain those properties in my small room, and at the really low levels I listen at
I've read some comments that the 350's need some volume to get going, however, the Fletcher and Munson curve can most likely be compensated by tone-control or loudness. Also, room modes can make or break the sound of perfectly fine speakers. A smaller room could benefit them. Always a good thing to audition speakers @home and some form of return policy. Happy hunting!
@@34332 Thanks. I was afraid they might be like that, and too big for my really small room. My B&W 601S3s had a very airy and 3D tweeter like that, but they had to be played too loud to fill out the big midrange dip they suffered from at lower volume levels. I guess I'll stick with my Wharfedale Diamond 9.1s, 'cause they do the best of the dozen or so speakers I've tried since the B&Ws, although the MA Bronze 1 were great at low levels too, as are my classic KEF C40s from 1985
These speakers are both good. The R200s sound like they have a bit more detail in some songs. The Q350s seemed to have slightly more presence than the R200s in the last acoustic song, though. If I was choosing out of the two, I'd buy which ever one is cheaper.
As R200 tem o som mais claro, vivo, delicado e suave. Eu gosto dessa clareza a mais nas R200. Nos graves achei elas equivalentes. As KEF tem o som mais congestionado. As Polk tem o som mais aberto. The R200 has the clearest, most vivid, delicate and smoothest sound. I like this extra clarity on the R200. In bass I found them equivalent. KEF has the most congested sound. Polk has the most open sound.
As I'm looking for an affordable speaker to do me over until I can buy some Elysian 2s, I find the KEF350 is fitting the bill perfectly. I think the only weakness is the lack of bass extension, which might be why they sound "weaker" than the Polks. But across the frequencies, they are pretty detailed, which gives them good imaging and soundstage. I feel the R200s are a little "airy" in the separation of the female vocals and instruments. For someone who primarily listens to jazz trio/quartets and mid-range guitar driven black/death metal, the Q350s are perfect.
Compared to the Polk, There's definitely a dip in the Kefs at about 1K to my ears, which makes it better for heavy rock. That region tends to make distorted electric guitars have more of a honk than I prefer. Probably just personal taste
I like that they sound a little less forward too than some others, which makes them more forgiving with some recordings, without sounding really sucked out in the mids, like the Klipsch RP600M and B&W 606 do. Looking at the measurements from JA at Stereophile, the Q350 has a very narrow dip at around 900hz, in between two also very narrow peaks at about 800 and 1200, and a broad very slight dip of about 2db from about 3-10k, and then a slight peak from 10-20k. His measurements also show superbly smooth and even off axis horizontal and vertical response curves from them, some of the best I've ever seen
Thanks for these tests. Any chance of pairing any of these speakers with a Rega Brio in the future ? I'd really like to hear the Brio vs the Arcam as well.
Wev'e heard this comparison before with a different amp, and without the colorations of the flatscreen in there. It was close to me then as now. The Q350's have slightly less deep bass, a slightly different midrange balance, with the KEF's having more center-mid presence, but less low and upper mids then the Polks, and perhaps a slightly more open, but sharply defined top end than the R200's. Imaging and soundstage is similarly good on both, but the Polks seem to be less forward and have more depth as far as this demo configuration can reveal, wich is compromised by the TV being there. I like them both, and while neither is perfect to me, they are both likable in their price range. I think the 12.2's and UB52's offer a strong challenge at a slightly lower price. I long to hear these speaker comparisons done with a different amp already, and sans the TV.
At the R200's and Q350's current sale prices, the 12.2 is looking to be wanting. They were geat at $499, but at $599, not so much. Wharfedale needs to have a sale too during the holidays if they want to keep up. I listened to the UB52 video again, and on second listen I liked them much more than I did initially, but I'm really blown away by this combination of Q350 and Arcam. The imaging, definition, and airy 3D sounstage even betters the R200, UB52, and Meta, imo
@@DougMen1 Yeah they seem to be a pretty good match with the Arcam.The Q350 has no lack of midrange for the Arcam to make worse, and they seem to reveal it's definition ok without sounding too harsh. Decent symmetry.
@@williammiebach1798 In regard to our conversation about B&W, the last speaker they made with their Kevlar woofer and aluminum nautilus tweeter was the PM1. There's a Japanese TH-camr (I think it's Japanese, but I can't tell their characters from Chinese ones) that has a comparison of the PM1 and the MA Silver 100, and they both sound great, and, surprisingly, the MA sounds brighter and the PM1 is sweeter, with none of the too hot tweeter that current B&Ws have
@@DougMen1 Not familiar with the PM1 or that series of B&W. When was it sold? I'll try to check out that demo. Thanks KEF Q350 and Elac UB52 both for around $500 a pair. Would be nice to get a comparison of those two and the R100's with a nuetral amp and no TV.
The Q350 compares very well to the R200, better than most, and sound even closer to the R200 when driven by the Arcam. I might even actually prefer them in some ways, as they seem to have better imaging, a wider soundstage and airier highs than the Polks. They sound more open, dynamic, and with better definition on the classical piece. I think this pairing of the Arcam and Q350 is my new favorite, making the R200 sound a little nasal and boxy at times, in comparison. This combination of Arcam and KEF is quite magical sounding. They are a steal at the current price of $499. Of course, so are the R200 at $629. The Elac B 5.2 and 6.2 are on sale at $229 and $279, and the Q150 is still $349, the Bronzes are still on sale (at $439 and $539), as are the UB52, although they're now $489, and the R100 are $529. The 12.2 are left looking quite overpriced, at $599, compared to the speakers I've already mentioned that are on sale, as well as the MA Silver 50, at $675 (regular price is $975), and the Dynaudio Emit 10 at $449 (normally $699).
Thank you, current speaker price update dude!😁 For those planing on a speaker purchase soon it's helpfull. Wish it was me, but doesnt look thay way now.
@@williammiebach1798 I forgot to mention that those prices are at Crutchfield. I'm not sure about other sellers, but when they have speakers on sale, they are usually the same price at Amazon.
@@williammiebach1798 I'm with you there. I've got too many speakers already, and, with my meager income, I can barely afford to eat after paying my bills
@@DougMen1 I believe that was the RP600m, an entirely different beast. He had the 500s in a mix of about 7 speakers, but it would be good for a head to head of the two. In fact, it was the head to head with the 600s that put me off the Klipsch, but that multi speaker shoot-out that got me interested in the 500s.
The RP500M is by far the best engineered of all the Klipsch bookshelf speakers, without the big midrange suckout that all the others, including the RP600M, suffer from. Look at Danny's (at GR Research) measurements of the RP500 vs. the 600, and you'll see what I mean
Pour certaines musiques la Kef Q350 est mieux adaptée. La Polk a un effet de loupe sur les médiums avec un grave surdimensionné mais c'est bien aussi .
I found the Q's a bit bland. They do everything fine, but lack a sence of drive and punch, perhaps too refined. I didn't like the HM tracks on the Q's and Fields also sounded bland to me. The R200's do a better job at the HM tracks, where bass is better defined and punchy, voices are 'there', not wallpaperish. Based on this demo and gear, I found the R200's more capable to deliver an engaging sound and stage.
![[Sound Battle] Klipsch RP500M vs KEF Q350 Bookshelf Speakers w/Arcam SA10 Integrated Amp](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WfbxdRD7T9s/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Sound Battle] KEF Q350 vs Polk Audio R200/ Audiolab 6000A / Integrated Amplifier/Bookshelf Speakers](/img/n.gif)
Polk R200 is transparent and clean with nice musicality 😊
Well, after going back and listening to all the videos with the 350s, including the one with the R200s and 350s driven by the NAD 316, and two I somehow missed with the 350s and Metas driven by the NAD 368, the 350s have quickly become my favorite speaker here. Their slightly less forward mids than the R200s and Metas makes them a little nore forgiving without soundind recessed at all, and, although the R200s and Metas are both so well balanced, I like the balance of the Q350s just as much or more, as they seem to sound bigger and punchier than either, and have more airy extended highs than the Polks, and even the Metas, to my ears, making them both sound flatter and more two dimensional to me, while the voices and instruments on the 350s sound like they're floating in space, even on my headphones. I'm really smitten and am considering trying to find $499 to get them, as I've always wanted to try a KEF Q series speaker. I just don't know if they'll retain those properties in my small room, and at the really low levels I listen at
I've read some comments that the 350's need some volume to get going, however, the Fletcher and Munson curve can most likely be compensated by tone-control or loudness. Also, room modes can make or break the sound of perfectly fine speakers. A smaller room could benefit them. Always a good thing to audition speakers @home and some form of return policy. Happy hunting!
@@34332 Thanks. I was afraid they might be like that, and too big for my really small room. My B&W 601S3s had a very airy and 3D tweeter like that, but they had to be played too loud to fill out the big midrange dip they suffered from at lower volume levels. I guess I'll stick with my Wharfedale Diamond 9.1s, 'cause they do the best of the dozen or so speakers I've tried since the B&Ws, although the MA Bronze 1 were great at low levels too, as are my classic KEF C40s from 1985
@@34332 I just read a review of the 350 from the Brit's What Hi-Fi, and they say that they aren't good at low volume
These speakers are both good. The R200s sound like they have a bit more detail in some songs. The Q350s seemed to have slightly more presence than the R200s in the last acoustic song, though. If I was choosing out of the two, I'd buy which ever one is cheaper.
As R200 tem o som mais claro, vivo, delicado e suave.
Eu gosto dessa clareza a mais nas R200.
Nos graves achei elas equivalentes.
As KEF tem o som mais congestionado.
As Polk tem o som mais aberto.
The R200 has the clearest, most vivid, delicate and smoothest sound.
I like this extra clarity on the R200.
In bass I found them equivalent.
KEF has the most congested sound.
Polk has the most open sound.
As I'm looking for an affordable speaker to do me over until I can buy some Elysian 2s, I find the KEF350 is fitting the bill perfectly. I think the only weakness is the lack of bass extension, which might be why they sound "weaker" than the Polks. But across the frequencies, they are pretty detailed, which gives them good imaging and soundstage. I feel the R200s are a little "airy" in the separation of the female vocals and instruments. For someone who primarily listens to jazz trio/quartets and mid-range guitar driven black/death metal, the Q350s are perfect.
Compared to the Polk, There's definitely a dip in the Kefs at about 1K to my ears, which makes it better for heavy rock. That region tends to make distorted electric guitars have more of a honk than I prefer. Probably just personal taste
I like that they sound a little less forward too than some others, which makes them more forgiving with some recordings, without sounding really sucked out in the mids, like the Klipsch RP600M and B&W 606 do. Looking at the measurements from JA at Stereophile, the Q350 has a very narrow dip at around 900hz, in between two also very narrow peaks at about 800 and 1200, and a broad very slight dip of about 2db from about 3-10k, and then a slight peak from 10-20k. His measurements also show superbly smooth and even off axis horizontal and vertical response curves from them, some of the best I've ever seen
Thanks for these tests. Any chance of pairing any of these speakers with a Rega Brio in the future ? I'd really like to hear the Brio vs the Arcam as well.
I thought you were going to remove the flatscreen TV
I haven't made a new recording yet, this was recorded before you mentioned. I will probably make a new video next week. Thanks~
@@eprojectEllie Sorry!
During your demos, which did you find easier to drive?
Wev'e heard this comparison before with a different amp, and without the colorations of the flatscreen in there.
It was close to me then as now.
The Q350's have slightly less deep bass, a slightly different midrange balance, with the KEF's having more center-mid presence, but less low and upper mids then the Polks, and perhaps a slightly more open, but sharply defined top end than the R200's. Imaging and soundstage is similarly good on both, but the Polks seem to be less forward and have more depth as far as this demo configuration can reveal, wich is compromised by the TV being there. I like them both, and while neither is perfect to me, they are both likable in their price range. I think the 12.2's and UB52's offer a strong challenge at a slightly lower price.
I long to hear these speaker comparisons done with a different amp already, and sans the TV.
At the R200's and Q350's current sale prices, the 12.2 is looking to be wanting. They were geat at $499, but at $599, not so much. Wharfedale needs to have a sale too during the holidays if they want to keep up. I listened to the UB52 video again, and on second listen I liked them much more than I did initially, but I'm really blown away by this combination of Q350 and Arcam. The imaging, definition, and airy 3D sounstage even betters the R200, UB52, and Meta, imo
@@DougMen1 The 350s sound pretty good.
@@DougMen1 Yeah they seem to be a pretty good match with the Arcam.The Q350 has no lack of midrange for the Arcam to make worse, and they seem to reveal it's definition ok without sounding too harsh. Decent symmetry.
@@williammiebach1798 In regard to our conversation about B&W, the last speaker they made with their Kevlar woofer and aluminum nautilus tweeter was the PM1. There's a Japanese TH-camr (I think it's Japanese, but I can't tell their characters from Chinese ones) that has a comparison of the PM1 and the MA Silver 100, and they both sound great, and, surprisingly, the MA sounds brighter and the PM1 is sweeter, with none of the too hot tweeter that current B&Ws have
@@DougMen1 Not familiar with the PM1 or that series of B&W. When was it sold?
I'll try to check out that demo. Thanks
KEF Q350 and Elac UB52 both for around $500 a pair. Would be nice to get a comparison of those two and the R100's with a nuetral amp and no TV.
The Q350 compares very well to the R200, better than most, and sound even closer to the R200 when driven by the Arcam. I might even actually prefer them in some ways, as they seem to have better imaging, a wider soundstage and airier highs than the Polks. They sound more open, dynamic, and with better definition on the classical piece. I think this pairing of the Arcam and Q350 is my new favorite, making the R200 sound a little nasal and boxy at times, in comparison. This combination of Arcam and KEF is quite magical sounding. They are a steal at the current price of $499. Of course, so are the R200 at $629. The Elac B 5.2 and 6.2 are on sale at $229 and $279, and the Q150 is still $349, the Bronzes are still on sale (at $439 and $539), as are the UB52, although they're now $489, and the R100 are $529. The 12.2 are left looking quite overpriced, at $599, compared to the speakers I've already mentioned that are on sale, as well as the MA Silver 50, at $675 (regular price is $975), and the Dynaudio Emit 10 at $449 (normally $699).
Thank you, current speaker price update dude!😁
For those planing on a speaker purchase
soon it's helpfull. Wish it was me, but doesnt look thay way now.
@@williammiebach1798 I forgot to mention that those prices are at Crutchfield. I'm not sure about other sellers, but when they have speakers on sale, they are usually the same price at Amazon.
@@williammiebach1798 I'm with you there. I've got too many speakers already, and, with my meager income, I can barely afford to eat after paying my bills
@@DougMen1 I prefer Audio Advice, No sales Tax, just bought my Martin Logan Sub on sale.
@@thomasward00 Do they have free shipping? Crutchfield does
Request，please do a KEF Q150 VS POLK R200 with arcam amp. (I prefered the Q150 over Q350 in your previous comparsion)
Request - any chance of a head to head between KEF Q350 and Klipsch RP-500m? Thank you!
I think he may have already done it in a previous video. If I'm wrong, then just compare his videos of the Q350 and RP500 using the same amp
@@DougMen1 I believe that was the RP600m, an entirely different beast. He had the 500s in a mix of about 7 speakers, but it would be good for a head to head of the two.
In fact, it was the head to head with the 600s that put me off the Klipsch, but that multi speaker shoot-out that got me interested in the 500s.
The RP500M is by far the best engineered of all the Klipsch bookshelf speakers, without the big midrange suckout that all the others, including the RP600M, suffer from. Look at Danny's (at GR Research) measurements of the RP500 vs. the 600, and you'll see what I mean
Pour certaines musiques la Kef Q350 est mieux adaptée. La Polk a un effet de loupe sur les médiums avec un grave surdimensionné mais c'est bien aussi .
I have an Onkyo A9010 amp 44 wpc @ 8ohm, does anyone think this will be a decent pairing for the Q350s?
It should be. Onkyo makes pretty robust amps with high current capability
I prefer the Kef, sounds very balanced. At $499 on sale right now, they are a good deal.
build quality is night and day
Who is better?
Keg q350
I like kef Q350 🙏🇮🇳
I found the Q's a bit bland. They do everything fine, but lack a sence of drive and punch, perhaps too refined. I didn't like the HM tracks on the Q's and Fields also sounded bland to me.
The R200's do a better job at the HM tracks, where bass is better defined and punchy, voices are 'there', not wallpaperish. Based on this demo and gear, I found the R200's more capable to deliver an engaging sound and stage.
R200 has more depth, rest both are v close.
Same audio clips should be side by side on the different speakers to properly compare! They are not which makes this comparison useless