Home > Datasheets > Kef 201 2 vs dynaudio c1 speakers

Kef 201 2 vs dynaudio c1 speakers

A great pair of bookshelf speakers is one of the best investments a music lover can make. It should last for years and deliver better performance than you can get from the majority of all-in-one Bluetooth and Wi-Fi speakers that are all the rage now. The Q Acoustics i is our favorite pair of passive bookshelf speakers to mate with your favorite stereo receiver , while the excellent Edifier SMKII pair is a more complete option with built-in amplifiers and Bluetooth. The i speakers deliver great detail and a spacious sound, and their design and build quality are better than what you get from most speakers in their price range. The Q Acoustics i speakers sound and look fantastic, and they play music of all genres with great detail and clarity.

===

We are searching data for your request:

Schemes, reference books, datasheets:
Price lists, prices:
Discussions, articles, manuals:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
WATCH RELATED VIDEO: cambridge audio Edge a dynaudio c1 mk 2 speakers

Sold HiFi Components (Historic)


Review Summary Sound "Right from the start, the Confidence C1s sounded pleasantly direct, detailed, open, and spacious, and they had good bass extension. The unusual baffle "is said to help reduce baffle-induced diffraction and uneven dispersion patterns, and make all Confidence-line speakers less susceptible to some of the boundary-interaction problems that plague speakers in typical domestic listening spaces. I concur. If sonic performance acts as the primary guide, rather than sheer size and number of drivers, the Dynaudio Confidence C1s are worth every penny of their asking price.

But when you consider that moving up to truly fine minimonitors can be expensive and require costly, heavy stands, and that such speakers typically have limited dynamic and frequency ranges, the practicality of floorstanding speakers can take on added appeal. Cone'n'dome floorstanders offer attractive cabinets in place of metal stands and usually have better dynamic punch. Their larger enclosures increase bass extension through additional reflex, suspension or transmission-line loading.

Not considering planars or horns, floorstanding dynamic speakers also have more that can go wrong: larger cabinet surfaces that can transmit unwanted resonances back into the drivers, and a larger baffle that can add diffraction artifacts. And if we're talking about a multi-way speaker, another crossover point is introduced, with all its attendant problems of smooth, coherent driver integration.

The added bass extension and dynamic range of larger floorstanders may also be more difficult to integrate into listening rooms. They can overwhelm a room with standing waves and force you to place the speakers where their sound is compromised. Fortunately for those of us with small or medium listening rooms, Dynaudio's Confidence C1s mix the typical benefits of stand-mounted minimonitors with those of floorstanders. The much larger Confidence C2 and C4 were both introduced in , but do not assume that the C1s are a home-theater-inspired afterthought to complete the Confidence line.

The C1s are high-performance stereo speakers in their own right. This unusual shape is said to help reduce baffle-induced diffraction and uneven dispersion patterns, and make all Confidence-line speakers less susceptible to some of the boundary-interaction problems that plague speakers in typical domestic listening spaces.

The bass-reflex C1 has a large port flared at both ends that exits at the bottom rear of the cabinet. The Esorar2 also has a pure-aluminum voice coil, an aluminum-alloy rear chamber with a built-in acoustically damped vent, and large neodymium magnet rings. The entire tweeter assembly is tightly integrated into the baffle for greater rigidity.

The two drivers cross over at Hz with 6dB-per-octave slopes. A single pair of WBT binding posts is around back. The bottom assembly of the stand is a resonance-damping three-piece sandwich of steel, rubber and steel that accommodates the stand posts and floor spikes. The speakers and their sand-filled stands weigh a good 60 pounds each and could weigh considerably more with some lead shot added to the mix. The packaging, user manual, and fit'n'finish of the review samples were all first-rate.

The tweeters were 31" from the side walls and 68" from the wall behind them -- also within suggested range. Dynaudio encourages fairly steep toe-in and recommends that you do serious listening without the grilles. If you hear any of the Dynaudio Confidence speakers, keep in mind that sufficient run-in time is crucial. Without this, the C1s had a prominent upper midrange and their bass sounded somewhat disconnected from the rest of the spectrum.

Right from the start, the Confidence C1s sounded pleasantly direct, detailed, open, and spacious, and they had good bass extension. Even accounting for room reinforcement, just how Dynaudio pulls off this bass performance from a small two-way speaker whose given -2dB point is 45Hz more than intrigues me.

Preamplifier - First Sound P. In general, when room reinforcement significantly influences bass response, the low frequencies become sluggish and uneven. Some notes stand out, while others sound attenuated. The C1s did not exhibit this behavior in my room. OK, the C1s will not shake walls in a larger room, as some bass hounds crave, but their bass was pitch defined and carried considerable weight into the 30Hz range and possibly lower in my listening space.

That's astonishing performance for a speaker of the C1's size. The C1s had a quick, spacious, straightforward purity often associated with fine minimonitors, but they also conveyed considerable heft and physicality. On "Song of the Nightingale" from the Stravinsky CD [Reference Recordings RR], the orchestra was beautifully, cleanly rendered with an expansive, corporeal presence.

I could hear and feel the musicians in space, not only on the loud bass-drum strikes but also on the more delicate instruments like triangles and plucked violins. I typically associate this kind of aural physicality with much larger speakers. If I closed my eyes, I could easily imagine that I was listening to taller floorstanding towers that were placed farther apart and away than the C1s actually were, because the Dynaudio speakers created a soundstage that was truly expansive.

The space was filled with air, and the stable individual images had a convincing verisimilitude. On the Ahn Trio recording, the "Oblivion" cut, the C1s reproduced the trio and percussion with a delicacy and spatial believability that blended seamlessly with the musical heart of the performance. Specific images were always placed into a realistically proportioned spatial context, as with the Stravinsky CD, which had a realistically scaled soundstage that fit the entire orchestra into a believable picture.

If I had to speculate on a way the C1s may deviate from tonal neutrality, it would be that they may have a slightly recessed lower midrange and upper bass -- a range that can lead to a honky or a bloated quality when room interactions were not well controlled through optimum speaker placement or use of acoustic treatments. The C1s did not, however, have an artificially elevated midbass to create an impression that a small speaker is trying to play bigger than it actually can.

The cellos and upright basses on the Songs of the Auvernge LP [EMI AE] were in no way exaggerated and very much in keeping with the chamber-sized orchestra that would be fitting for this material. Perhaps owing to the advantages of small size, simplicity, and ease of placement within a room, the C1s did posses a kind of coherence that translated to a feeling of purity and directness that I believe is special at any price point.

No part of their performance seemed at odds with another part. Micro- and macrodynamic events blended seamlessly with each other to create a reasonably convincing and enjoyable musical experience. Spatial cues remained consistent throughout their bandwidth, unlike with some speakers that can create a disconnected quality by spotlighting the upper frequencies or possessing a sluggish quality from an over-ripe bottom end.

The C1s really shone in their ability to dig out low-level information, while still keeping all of the details integrated into a musically meaningful whole. The C1s clearly showed how those light taps were strikes of the tympani and are part of the music. On "Cherokee Louise," the orchestral introduction has a passage that features two clarinets that apparently needed to have their spot-microphone level brought up and then returned to a more integrated level as the intro finishes up.

The ambient noise level around those clarinets clearly goes up during their intro duet. Not all speakers and electronics can unravel such distinctions.

I bring these examples up merely to illustrate how transparent the C1s were, rather than to indulge in a boring discussion about recording quirks. When transferred to a purely musical context, this same level of resolution allows you to delve into your chosen music at a deeper level -- beautiful performances, engineering noodling, and everything else. Like any transparent speaker, no matter how coherent or well integrated it may be, the C1s will not turn a strident recording into something else.

Some listeners may favor a more laid-back, forgiving speaker, one that makes nearly all recordings listenable. Also, even though Dynaudio has reportedly optimized the crossover to mitigate difficulty for the amplifier, the C1s are probably tube-amp compatible only with at least 70 stout watts or so, because their 86dB sensitivity and 4-ohm load will greatly tax a less-beefy tube amp.

They just lapped up the solid-state watts that my Gamut M monoblocks served up. The C1s will also not do the large-scale trick in large rooms. What minimonitor is? They just sit there doing their fine job of things when fed a high-quality signal to work with. Their design seems to be more a result of function than any aesthetic consideration, Scandinavian or otherwise.

My long-term reference, the Super Eclipse IIIs are much larger floorstanding, five-driver, three-way speakers that weigh 92 pounds each. Although they work very well with good solid-state amps, they are clearly designed and marketed with tube amps in mind; their manufacturer-stated sensitivity rating is 93dB, and they are said to be a ohm load.

Even though the two speakers are different animals, my Gamut M solid-state amps served them both equally well. To my eyes, the styling is odd to the point of being unsightly, and the build quality, while good, is really nothing special.

But I certainly like the way the C1 sounds. Play something with prominent bass and everything but ultra-low bass is intact. The C1 sounds remarkably full. The highs, too, are airy, sweet and extended. For me, though, I was most impressed with the midrange -- in particular, how it handled voices.

The level of detail that the C1 displays is also impressive -- good enough to place the C1 near the top of the small-speaker heap. My reservations about the C1 are only in regard to its looks -- admittedly, a very subjective thing -- and its price. On the other hand, the C1 has a rich, robust sound that very few other minimonitors can match. Voices, in particular, sounded magical. Doug Schneider das soundstage. The large dynamic swings of a big orchestra playing full out with bass drum-punctuated crescendos sail through on the Super Eclipse IIIs; the C1s can sometimes balk on these passages by simply not going as low or rendering a large dynamic swing with the same convincing slam.

Thankfully, the C1s showed little evidence of awkwardly reaching a limit by becoming harsh or ragged. That is preferable to obvious cone breakup or "bottoming out" that some small speakers will exhibit at even lower volume settings.

The Coincident speakers also created the impression that the back of their soundstage was a bit deeper than that of the C1s, but I never felt the C1s shortchanged stage depth on their own at all. The Super Eclipse IIIs had more lower-midrange presence, which can either work for or against different recordings; in some cases, it brings a greater feeling of gravitas or emotional import, while in others it can make the musical meaning harder to follow.

The C1s had greater and more refined upper-frequency extension, which gave them a quicker, more lively sound in general. By direct comparison, the Super Eclipse IIIs sounded constrained, but that could also be a function of not having enough space to breathe in my room. The two speakers share the same Esotar2 tweeter but have different tweeter-mounting hardware. The sonic similarities between the C1s and the 25s were unmistakable.

They both have the same quick, open, detailed presentation accompanied by expansive soundfields. The Special 25s did have a little more powerful, extended bass performance, and the volume did not need to be turned up as high to get the same output.

Where the 25s departed from the C1s were in areas of coherency, transparency, and musicality. The Special 25s were more tipped up in their treble response and had oodles of detail, but that detail was not always as well connected to the rest of their presentation, especially compared to C1s.

Vocalists' lip sounds through the Special 25s, for example, could sometimes be a little more prominent compared to their throat tones and body resonances, thereby creating a slightly disjointed quality. Also, the more forward treble of the Special 25s, while initially dazzling, was actually less transparent overall.

The details of one musical element could become overwhelmed by the next element without the first one being allowed to complete its uninterrupted course. The C1s sorted out complex, simultaneous, overlapping events better. How can a relatively small, stand-mounted speaker be value-competitive with a larger floorstanding multi-way speaker? At the end of the day, the C1s proved to be deeply rewarding speakers; they covered the hi-fi areas of detail, imaging, and tonal accuracy exceedingly well, and they always did so in a way that was consistent with music itself.

The C1s thrilled me with their strengths -- their musical honesty, balance and integration.


Kef ref 1 vs kef 201/2 vs kef r300 New equipment help!

Sneak Previews gives you an advance look at products under review before that. The new Further Thoughts section provides you with additional. The reviewer might have additional insight. Another new.

Bookshelf 2-way speaker delivers true audiophile-quality sound · Sealed enclosure for deep, lifelike, musical all-audio.pro Handling W · inch long throw pulp.

Best Loudspeaker of All Time


I currently enjoy my Kef reference 1 and am curious about the Dynaudio Confidence Have Bhk pre and the Bhk Medium to smaller room. Acoustically treated quite well. Any insights or suggestions would be nice. I also own the matching stands. Really nice improvement.

Any bookshelves that you guys recommend?

kef 201 2 vs dynaudio c1 speakers

Listed here are just some of the items we have sold since around when our first web site was launched. As you can see there is very little that has not come through our hands in that time. Very few people can claim the wealth of knowledge and experience we have in this field. Sold HiFi Components Historic.

Forum Rules.

Stativhögtalare


Forums New posts Search forums. Media New media New comments Search media. Members Current visitors New profile posts Search profile posts. Log in Register. Search titles only.

Audio Reviews by Year

XQ Despite their Gallic heritage, their square, functional design lacks any sense of flamboyance, romanticism, high-end exclusivity, or haute couture. Parked next to them for review is a pair of speakers with personality and flair. With such bold and, dare I say, emotional elements in its design, one might think it was built in France, Italy, or Spain. You also likely know that KEF technology has been highly respected for an equally long time. For instance, back in the early s, when computers were still a novelty in manufacturing or anyplace else, for that matter , KEF was the first company to use computer-aided modeling to design speakers.

KEF Reference /2; KLH Audio Kendall; Klipsch Reference RF; Krell LAT-2; Lafleuraudio X1; Magico A1; Magico S1 all-audio.pro; Magico S5.

Compact Speakers

The Naim is still a better match to the Harbeth than Luxman. I recently acquired a balanced interconnect for the Luxman and sound quality of the Dukes has improved again. I plan to revisit stands in the near future, and these will be on the shortlist, so thanks for the recommendation. These stands are mm tall so I assume they are the SS6?

Kef Reference 201 Manual Transmission


David, I've heard Vitus amps and they impressed me Belgian hi-fi show. Your SIA is a wonderful design. It weighs 42 kg but is not higher than 13cm if I'm not mistaken. Does it have the power to drive your S5's to high volumes?

So, yes, i simply want to hear this Sound-Bubble.

2nd California Audio Show: Countdown, Part 4

By Dvddvd , September 9, in 2 Channel. Actually, lots of people cry about cables and their costs. Naimkiller 3 posts. Dvddvd 3 posts. September 10,

I thought if they could sound that good in a car, imagine how they could sound in a properly set up home system. The Esotar 2 drivers seem special to my ears. LOG IN. Any any feedback would be greatly appreciated!




Comments: 0
Thanks! Your comment will appear after verification.
Add a comment

  1. There are no comments yet.