SpeakerTalk Forum Index SpeakerTalk
This forum has been set up to facilitate discussion of 1970s KEF speakers and drive units. The owner of the Forum has no connection with KEF Audio.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

what Kef's are better than 104aB's.?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpeakerTalk Forum Index -> KEF Speakers from the 1970s
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hector smith
Junior Contributor 10+


Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 15
Location: Bettyhill

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:40 am    Post subject: what Kef's are better than 104aB's.? Reply with quote

Hi and thank's for looking,

what Kef's are better than 104aB's

I have a pair of 104aB's , I use a tt from the 80's and 2 old Rogers amp's.
I am looking to purchase an other pair of Kef's to refurb.
I am not unhappy with the 104aB's infect they are a pure delight with the old amp's. sound good, good size, and easy to service.
I like the look of the KEF REFERENCE 105 MK1 and I can get a pair for £300, BUT you can get 2 pair of 104aB's for that= is the 105 twice the speaker?.
Pleas help.
thanks. H
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
proffski
Über Contributor 1000+


Joined: 22 Aug 2003
Posts: 1297
Location: Tewkesbury UK

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:42 pm    Post subject: Re: what Kef's are better than 104aB's.? Reply with quote

If working correctly and not been butchered inside or out then in my most humble opinion i would say yes. (Ex 104aB owner).
_________________
I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a
man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
-Winston Churchill
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
audiolabtower
VIP Contributor 500+


Joined: 06 Jan 2009
Posts: 544

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've had both, and a good 105 dalek will beat a 104aB in low bass control, image depth, image projection, loudness and treble "sweetness".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Innercity126
Intermediate Contributor 25+


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 39
Location: Sea World, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:42 pm    Post subject: Re: what Kef's are better than 104aB's.? Reply with quote

hector smith wrote:
Hi and thank's for looking,

what Kef's are better than 104aB's

I have a pair of 104aB's , I use a tt from the 80's and 2 old Rogers amp's.
I am looking to purchase an other pair of Kef's to refurb.
I am not unhappy with the 104aB's infect they are a pure delight with the old amp's. sound good, good size, and easy to service.
I like the look of the KEF REFERENCE 105 MK1 and I can get a pair for £300, BUT you can get 2 pair of 104aB's for that= is the 105 twice the speaker?.
Pleas help.
thanks. H



Hi Hector,

Ditto on Proffski's comment. I am a 105.1 owner, and while I have heard/used 104ab's numerous times, the 105's are in a different league. Mind you, it was the 104ab's that got me all fire up about KEF many years ago, and they do hold a special place in my heart; however, ever since getting the 105's my desire to seek out additional KEF models has severely tapered off, if you know what I mean.

Having said that, and to bring it back to your original question, yes, certainly there are other KEF models that can offer more than the 104ab, but you and I both know this is all subjective stuff and it really depends on what you are looking for in a loudspeaker and how much you are willing to spend.

I am quite fond of the LS3/5a with Rogers Extenders, finding this duo superbly detailed and dynamic. Any of the larger Coupled Cavity designs, especially the 107's, are outstanding loudspeakers in my book. I had a pair of Q-60's for several years and quite enjoyed them, too.

One shouldn't approach this in terms of bettering the 104ab's, as they are outstanding speakers in their own right. Rather one should simply look for the KEF loudspeaker that effectively suits his or her needs. It could be any of the aforementioned models above or something entirely different from their extensive line. The fun is going through them all to find the right one!

William
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hector smith
Junior Contributor 10+


Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 15
Location: Bettyhill

PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, and thank you all for inpute.
And Thank's Innercity126.
I did for a long time want to get the LS3/5a's, but never managed to get a pair for the right price and the right condition,so I kind of gave up looking in that direction.
After recapping the aB's I realised then that I wouldn't better them for what they are, and after all they do suit my needs, I don't want louder, and the aB' Physical size from tweet to midbase is perfect for my space ,

How near can you sit to 105's,?

My aB's are 9ft from ear to speaker and 10ft apart, in the middle of room. I want it to stay the same but my concern is; would the 105's have to go back a bit? . I cant go back ,back of head is 5ft to treated back wall, no absorbtion nor reflections. and I really like to have the distance from the front wall to the back of the speaker,
The 107's on the other hand, am I right in saying that it has base units inside a sealed unit radiating up through the top which I would of thought more suitable to than the 105's for close listening.
But the last time I saw 107's was 20 year ago,
Are they hard to come by, and what kind of money should I expect to spend? ball park.£
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Innercity126
Intermediate Contributor 25+


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 39
Location: Sea World, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hector smith wrote:
Hi, and thank you all for inpute.
And Thank's Innercity126.
I did for a long time want to get the LS3/5a's, but never managed to get a pair for the right price and the right condition,so I kind of gave up looking in that direction.
After recapping the aB's I realised then that I wouldn't better them for what they are, and after all they do suit my needs, I don't want louder, and the aB' Physical size from tweet to midbase is perfect for my space ,

How near can you sit to 105's,?

My aB's are 9ft from ear to speaker and 10ft apart, in the middle of room. I want it to stay the same but my concern is; would the 105's have to go back a bit? . I cant go back ,back of head is 5ft to treated back wall, no absorbtion nor reflections. and I really like to have the distance from the front wall to the back of the speaker,


Hi Hector,

I've included a photo of my listening room where I have my reference Infinity Kappa 9's in place (105's still in refurb). This is the same space where I would have my 105's set up, too.

The dimensions of the room are approximately 16' X 13' and there is really nothing special about it. There are no room/wall treatments, and I do not spend more than a few seconds plopping each one down and giving them a slight toe-in. Yet, these speakers (and the 105's) sing like nobody’s business.

Both the Kappa's and the 105's project a wall of sound that is completely and utterly engaging. One simply cannot help but become totally immersed in the sound that emanates from them.

I don't know if you can tell from the pic, but the Kappa's are no more than 20-inches from the back wall (so, too, would sit the 105's), yet there isn’t even the slightest bit of bass boom, smear, or distortion whatsoever.

The reason I included the pic and mentioned what I did above, is to convey that the 105's, at least in my modest sized room, are not in the least bit fussy about placement. Remember, the 105's were designed as a reference "studio" transducer, and can perform in the near field equally as well as fill a large listening space. This is the hallmark of a truly well-built, well-engineered loudspeaker. It should be able to perform in any type of setting, and with any type of equipment.

Forgive me, as I didn't mean to drag this out so long. To simply answer your question, were you to get a pair of 105's, I think you’ll find that they would be happy where ever you decided to put them. Some may beg to differ, but I can only go by what I experience in my own setting.

I hope this helps.

William


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hector smith
Junior Contributor 10+


Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 15
Location: Bettyhill

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank's very much for that Innercity1.
I think you might of sold me the 105's , A bit more realistic than the 107's, I want to recap and get sounding right whatever I get and I don't know if it's me, but the older the stuff the easer it is to service, And if I go for 105's I can get them now, or very soon. less money, no saving.
Thank you again.
Hector.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Innercity126
Intermediate Contributor 25+


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 39
Location: Sea World, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hector smith wrote:
Thank's very much for that Innercity1.
I think you might of sold me the 105's , A bit more realistic than the 107's, I want to recap and get sounding right whatever I get and I don't know if it's me, but the older the stuff the easer it is to service, And if I go for 105's I can get them now, or very soon. less money, no saving.
Thank you again.
Hector.



Hi Hector,

My Good friend Dave, who is also a member here, has a pair of 107 II's. They are in a beautiful rosewood finish and are practically new. He and I have compared the 105's side by side to the 107 II's, and it really is a tossup as to which is the "better" speaker.

I will say that the bass in the 107 II's goes deeper, but we both agree that the bass in the 105's is more impactful. This could be the difference between the 107 II's coupled cavity design verses the 105's direct radiating sealed cabinet design.

Both have mid/tweeter head assemblies which project a very open, transparent sound but, again, I find that the 105's sound a bit more focused.

Don't get me wrong, the 107 II is a fabulous loudspeaker, worthy of some very serious audiophile attention. I could live with a pair very easily. It's just that in a direct comparison I'd have to give the nod to the 105's. Perhaps I'm biased.

107's and 107 II's sell for anywhere between $1,200.00 - $2,000.00 depending on condition. Whereas 105's typically sell for $300.00 - $800.00. Both are becoming increasingly difficult to find, especially 105's complete with everything. The only thing missing from mine were the caster wheels that attach to the bottom of the bass cabinet. Amazon had several sets so it was not a problem.

Let us know which way you go...

William
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hector smith
Junior Contributor 10+


Joined: 23 Oct 2012
Posts: 15
Location: Bettyhill

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2012 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you.
Innercity126 and Dave.
The 105's are more suitable to me think, than the 107's.
Cheaper,
A closer power match to my amp,
Under 1m tall,
Availability,
Sound, I know what I am getting with the 105's, I always liked the sound,predictable, and true.
But with the few times I heard 107's, more than half the time we left thinking something wasn't wired up right, which might of bean the case..
I have never set out Purposely to listen to any speaker, it was always the case of picking the best speaker in the shop to use with whatever we were looking at, the best the worst and something in the middle.
As time has gone on myself and few friends that used to trawl the listening rooms, gave up years ago, As CD's came in allot less room's had tt's set up then by 2000 , I did not see A room without A big mad TV stuck right in line of fire, all digital singing and dancing,and by then not even a tt in the shop, in most cases. The turntable being to me the heart. next best tape, but never CD. plus after the mid 90's I was in no rush to hear anything new.
Thanks.
Hector
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richie
Senior Contributor 100+


Joined: 06 Nov 2010
Posts: 108
Location: Northamptonshire

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I was thinking of getting some 105's too. I love my 104ab's but now feel there is not enough bass for my room, or maybe I just have the upgrade bug.
So, the 105's seems the best way to go, but I was listening to some guys on the AudiogoN forum singing the praises of the 105's when a number of other posters started saying they thought the 104/2 was the better speaker.... so now I'm confused (actually my normal state)

Also, Innercity, is it true you need a zillion watts per channel to fire those gorgeous kappa 9's ?
_________________
Still learning ......
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Innercity126
Intermediate Contributor 25+


Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Posts: 39
Location: Sea World, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richie wrote:
I was thinking of getting some 105's too. I love my 104ab's but now feel there is not enough bass for my room, or maybe I just have the upgrade bug.
So, the 105's seems the best way to go, but I was listening to some guys on the AudiogoN forum singing the praises of the 105's when a number of other posters started saying they thought the 104/2 was the better speaker.... so now I'm confused (actually my normal state)

Also, Innercity, is it true you need a zillion watts per channel to fire those gorgeous kappa 9's ?


Hi Richie,

No, I think it's just one of those audio myths that got started years ago and spread like wildfire. Someone probably crossed positive and negative speaker wires while hooking them up and fried their amp… and the myth began.

I have used as little as an 80 WPC integrated amp without detriment to either amp or speakers. What I have gained by using more WPC (rather higher current) is a bit more impact and definition in the bass, but this can be said of any loudspeaker.

As for the 104/2 verses the 105, I prefer the bass in the 105, simply for the reason I mentioned above verses the 107 II's bass. I prefer the sound of a sealed verses bass reflex cabinet, with the exception of transmission lines. But that's just me.

The 104/2's are great sounding loudspeakers. You can't go wrong with them.

William
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    SpeakerTalk Forum Index -> KEF Speakers from the 1970s All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group