kef 104/2 v 105/3

Discussion in 'Hi-Fi and General Audio' started by ziggy72, Feb 6, 2006.

  1. ziggy72

    ziggy72

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    i borrowed a pair of used kef 104/2 and hooked them upto my AUDIOLAB CDM11 / DAX, AUDIOLAB Q, TRICHORD (MICHELL) ALECTO MONOS and got the best sound i'd ever heard at home from either cd or vinyl. i played cd after cd and got the sound i'd been searching for after 16 years of buying, selling and exchanging equipment.
    the sound was full, clear, detailed and three dimensional.it had real conviction and punch as well as poise.
    the problem being i picked up a few old magazines and read how the 105/3 was more of the same but even better. so i hunted a pair down for the same price as the 104/2's and bought them. i got them home and hooked them up , hoping to be blew away but was left completely deflated.
    yes they had a bit more detail and clarity but had lost the weight, fullness and musicality.
    any suggestions?:confused:
     
    ziggy72, Feb 6, 2006
    #1
  2. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    Personally speaking model 107/2
     
    greg, Feb 6, 2006
    #2
  3. ziggy72

    felix part-time Horta

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    dead
    Sell them and find the pair of 104/2s you really want; they are great speakers.
     
    felix, Feb 6, 2006
    #3
  4. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    for the money the 104/2 is a serious bargain, though they dont go as deep as I would have liked. The 107 (ie. the mk 1) is to be avoided. I waited patiently for a pair of 107/2 at the right price and I love them.
     
    greg, Feb 6, 2006
    #4
  5. ziggy72

    ziggy72

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm led to believe the 105/3 should be an improvement over the 104/2's and i should strip out the drivers and send them to KEF for a service. somehow i don't think this will make a great deal of difference and would cost between £200-250 when they quoted me.
     
    ziggy72, Feb 6, 2006
    #5
  6. ziggy72

    coxybabe

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dordogne, France
    Ziggy,

    I have been using 104/2s now for over 15 years and have yet to hear a pair of speakers that can touch them without having to spend ridiculous amounts of dosh. The only thing that has ever improved them was moving from an LK280/Spark to a Klout: the 104/2s are current hungry and do need good amplification.

    The 104/2s come up on eBay and often are sold for not vast amounts of dosh. Check the foam inserts on the bass drivers (not a train smash if they are perished as they are only there to prevent dust entry) and the tweeters, which are very hard to replace if blown.

    Happy hunting,

    Dave
     
    coxybabe, Feb 7, 2006
    #6
  7. ziggy72

    anon_bb Honey Badger

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,804
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 104s were usually regarded as the best - I had the 103s at one point for many years.
     
    anon_bb, Feb 7, 2006
    #7
  8. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    IMO the 107/2 is the clear pick by some margin, but they are more costly so perhaps pound for pound at used prices the 104/2 is hard to beat, as is IMO the 104AB hard to beat at its typical used price.
     
    greg, Feb 7, 2006
    #8
  9. ziggy72

    wadia-miester Mighty Rearranger

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    6,026
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Beyond the 4th Dimension
    I must be real oddball, I don't rate any of the 104/7 series by Kef I could never see what was the fixation with them really.
    before you all jump on me!!!
    I gained this stance long before I started the hifi trail.
    I find them ordinary, in a quirky darlek like way
    Sorry just can't get enthused about them.
    But I'm in a minority here so I'll go now!!!
     
    wadia-miester, Feb 7, 2006
    #9
  10. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    Tony - I dont think you're an odd ball at all. I thought I was the odd ball. I havent explored all that many alternatives so I may well be barking up the wrong tree, but I'm yet to be convinced of that. Whilst I dont think the 107/2 excels at any one thing, as a single system it does most things pretty well - ie. broad frequency range, big room filling sound, good detail, pretty well integrated, good imaging, goes loud, does quiet nicely, can party, decent with acoustic, rock, dance music, dub. For the £1500 I paid, I've struggled to hear anything else better for the money, but I dont love the looks :)
     
    greg, Feb 7, 2006
    #10
  11. ziggy72

    leonard smalls GufmeisterGeneral

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Marches
    I had a pair of 104/2s years ago, and they worked very well indeed with a Radford St25, though the bass wasn't the deepest I've heard, maybe 35Hzish minimum..
    I'd still recommend them as a cheapish decent 2nd hand buy - you may even find my old ones out there, they were nicked, and replaced by an even older pair of Kef Chorales - the ones with the chrome stand which were quite similar sounding and very 70s space age looking... They sounded pretty good too, but my current Ditton 66s beat the crap out of both, by a long way!
     
    leonard smalls, Feb 8, 2006
    #11
  12. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    I think you'll find they, oddly, only go down to around 55Hz. The 107's go down to 20.

    I'd be interested to hear your Dittons. How much did you pay for them.
     
    greg, Feb 8, 2006
    #12
  13. ziggy72

    leonard smalls GufmeisterGeneral

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Marches
    In room the 104/2s were definitely lower than 55Hz, though certainly not seismic.

    And the Dittons were inherited, though I've seen them for between £400 and £800 at emporium hifi and the like. I listened to a pair of ProAc D80s on Tuesday - compared to the Dittons their bass was one note and bloated with no greater extension.. Seems like a bargain to me if you can get speakers for max £800 to trounce ones costing £8995!
     
    leonard smalls, Feb 9, 2006
    #13
  14. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    I beg to differ regards how low they go
     
    greg, Feb 9, 2006
    #14
  15. ziggy72

    leonard smalls GufmeisterGeneral

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Marches
    Aye, but that's -2dB, and no doubt anechoic.
    In room, they were able to reproduce reasonably deep sounds quite realistically, such as a 5 string bass low 'b'.. They wouldn't rattle your kidneys, but not too bad!
    My Dittons are quoted as 18Hz at the bottom - though whether that's in room, -3db or -30dB is open to interpretation.. They go significantly lower than Kefs though, as my record of Arthur Willis playing his version of Mussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition" on the organ showed!
     
    leonard smalls, Feb 9, 2006
    #15
  16. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    Good point regards in-room. The Ditton 66's sound worth keeping an eye out for. My wife's stepfather has a pair of 33's I think. I would add though that you need to hear a pair of 107/2 before you lump them in with the other ref models from that period.

    Are there any specific issues to look out for regards the 66 in terms of wear and tear, renewal, etc?
     
    greg, Feb 9, 2006
    #16
  17. ziggy72

    leonard smalls GufmeisterGeneral

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,028
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Marches
    I was listening to some 207s t'other day (I have this craving to hear big speakers, for some bizzarre reason), and they went quite low, though they still weren't, to my ears, as good in the bass speed dept as the Dittons. Mebbe I've just got that mythical synergy!
    Anyway, with regard to buying some 66s, there's 2 types. Series 1 were taller, and had a 12" bass resonator below the main 12" driver. I've never heard that particular version, and so can't comment. Mine are the series 2, which had the resonator facing backwards. Both had the BBC specced dome mid-range (similar to ATCs nowadays), and both were designed as a pro monitor and domestic speaker - many albums from the late 70s were allegedly mixed on them...
    And things to look out for are the usuals for an old speaker: decaying surrounds to drivers, farty noises etc, signs of bashing meaning they may have had a hard life. According to Les at Walrus they're a cult speaker in Japan, and parts can still be had for them.
    They also respond well to power, and lots of it. They were fine with 60odd watts of MF B200, better with 120w of Lumley valves, and better still with more than 600w of Bryston. Having listened to them next to some Audio Physic Virgos, I'd say sensitivity was nearer to 85dB/w - though they still bettered the APs in every way apart from "hifi-ness", even though the amp was a lowly Lavardin (that's lowly in power terms..).
    But putting it into context, I prefer the sound that a speaker with a big paper cone makes - if you don't like that you may hate the Dittons. And by the way, they're not warm and cuddly unless the rest of your kit is!
     
    leonard smalls, Feb 9, 2006
    #17
  18. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    mmm the 20x range are a bit, well, broken to my ears. Completely different sound and market IMO.
     
    greg, Feb 9, 2006
    #18
  19. ziggy72

    Legzr1

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    194
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greg,
    You say the series I 107's are to be avoided - what's your reasoning for this?
    I still remember the first time I heard a pair of these some 15 years ago in a now defunct hifi shop on Tyneside - this was the first time i'd heard 'real' music from speakers.:)

    Have you had a listen to the Kef Maidstones ?;)
     
    Legzr1, Feb 9, 2006
    #19
  20. ziggy72

    greg Its a G thing

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    They're very similar sounding, but apparently the mk1 are susceptible to the rubber surrounds perishing, a problem which apparently doesnt affect the version 2. I was told avoid used mk1's solely for this reason.
     
    greg, Feb 9, 2006
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.