Which One, More Detailed in Real Life? Wharfedale EVO 4.2 vs KEF Q350 W/NAD C316BEE V2[SOUND BATTLE]

[@user-it8ki6hr6d]

Wharfedale EVO 4.2 THE BEST

[@Trollberg]

The last 2 tracked sealed it for me. Evo 4.2. I listen mostly to metal and techno. The guitars sound meaner darker thanks to mids.

[@n.anderson6101]

good comparison! thanks fo the video.

[@Joldoshev]

Отличный тест!

[@LeRoySL-q5q]

The KEF's need a lot of power from an amp that can operate easily at 4 ohms. My 350's with 300 watts per channel sound AMAZING! Excellent imaging and stereo separation with deep bass- no sub needed! A 50 watt per channel amp is definitely not going to make the KEF's perform optimally. I sit 9 feet "centered" between the speakers which are 10 feet apart. I listen between 75-90 dB in that position and am amazed at how the 350's sound! I like the fact that there isn't any time delay or phase shifting with them since they are basically point source speakers. All frequencies arrive at my ears at the same time which is why i prefer concentric drivers over conventional 2 or 3-way loudspeakers.

[@tone-369]

EVO 4.2 👍

[@34332]

Tonaly, the 350 is much more darker sounding to me, where the highs give some sort of suggestion re. clarity. The Evo's seem much more balanced, with better detail overall. It's in another class. With competition like the EVO and R200, I get it why prices for the 350 are dropping fast (at least in the EU, sometimes less than half vs EVO or R200). I wonder how people are listening to the demo's, would be nice to hear. I'm on Sennheiser HD 25's. Thank you E Project 👍

[@eprojectEllie]

Thank you Mike!

[@Mr.scoopoly]

hi, I'm using aiaiai headphones with 5s studio drivers trough m audio air 192/6 soundcard. i had few versions of hd25s when i was dj'ing and i can tell you it is one of the best noise cancelling headphones but far from accurate. mids are tamed in hds, maybe thats why q350s sound even more dark than they are. i am on the hunt for new speakers. i listened most popular ones and if you not planning to get sub q350s really good choice for the money. EVO 4.2 for me felt at first like it has more range in mids ( mid woofer) but it felt flat and missing dynamics. when i was comparing speakers in sound room i was surprised how q350s was filling the room in this regard better was Aperion Audio Verus III but just to bright for me. People like different way to hear music, mine was most of time v shaped eq maybe thats why my choice is q350s and i dont want subwoofer.

[@joeydelmarsjr.646]

my klipsch media pro 2.1 THX make all sound fantastic

[@ricardoduquedealmeida1061]

EVO 4.2 is the winner, more natural, balanced

[@quananginh9446]

My opinion: EVO 4.2 has more high-mid (brighter mid), so it sounds forward while Q350 sounds laid-back. Because of the obvious BBC dip on the Q350, the harshness of treble is more noticeable and Q350 also sounds thinner in the high frequencies. EVO 4.2 has smoother treble. Bass-wise, Q350 is better, punchier and more full-bodied.

[@andrewbrazier9664]

I am hearing more micro HF detail on the Evo 👂

[@weaselpopper]

Wharfedale just does it for me. It`s not even close. We all have different tastes and the EVO is not my favorite Wharfedale but for me it would be my pic. In this age when mids take a back seat to the "V" eq of so many the mids are where my kind of music lies. I could listen to the EVO all day but not the Kef the highs are also tinny and too much for my taste. Just listening to this I`m already missing the mids from the Kef.

[@rookiestereophilemikej5508]

KEF is a winner... while the Wharfdale sounded nice.... the KEF delivered the lower frequencies effortlessly while the Wharfdale seemed to sound like it was at its limit and peaking.

[@fremont66]

EVO 4.2 hands down...

[@christians.8658]

If u want a really clear and bright sounding speaker, choose the old IQ series. IQ70 or 90. All that comes after is less brillant. They call it "warm".

[@DougMen1]

This has me very confused. On some songs I hear very little difference, yet on others, the EVO sounds a lot more open and clear, and the 350 sounds a bit muffled

[@williammiebach1798]

I'm not sure what you're hearing. The overall balance of the speakers doesn't change to me track to track. How could it? To me the EVO never sounds more open and clear than the Q350, nor does the KEF ever sound muffled.

[@williammiebach1798]

Tbe brightness of the track seems to affect the way the EVO's midrange is percieved in relation to it's highs a bit, I think.

[@DougMen1]

@@williammiebach1798 It depends on how bright the mix is on each song. On song #2, Bedroom, I hear very little difference, but on the #3 song, Boost Your Power, the EVO sounds clearer and brighter, and the KEF sounds darker, slthough maybe muffled was the wrong word choice. If you don't hear that, then you need to change what you're using to listen with, because it doesn't have enough resolving power on the high end. I hear the same thing on the jazz piece, the lead trumpet sounds brighter on the EVO and darker on the KEF. I hear the same difference in tonal balance on the strings in the classical piece, and on Crash and Burn, and a little on the final acoustic guitar piece, although it's more subtle on that one

[@williammiebach1798]

@@DougMen1 I probably need to listen to that comparison again, but I did say that the brightness of the track seemed to effect perception of the 4.2 's response and balance between mids and highs, so I think I heard some of what your saying, but I don't ever seem to feel happy with it's balance, though I know others do. I was disapointed from the start I didn't like it more.

[@DougMen1]

@@williammiebach1798 I agree that they didn't do a great job in the integration of the 3 drivers as well as they should have. I suspect that the 2 way EVO 4.1 may be a better sounding speaker than the 4.2

[@shaunyweaver1144]

I dont know what happened to kef with these speakers . I still have my q35 which sound so much better than this one . Did kef just try to get to clever?

[@williammiebach1798]

The KEF Q350 is an example of a speaker that can give those who like it an overall warm, full bodied presentation while still being pretty balanced and revealing. The EVO 4.2 has a nicer textural quality to me throughout it's range, but is sadly overcooked in bass and midrange warmth.

[@jari121]

Several reviewers say that when listening to Evo, the ears should be at AMT level or slightly above AMT. Would be nice to know what level the microphone has been in these recordings?

[@williammiebach1798]

@@jari121 I have a feeling he doesn't change the microphone height to adjust for taller speakers, so they're probably closer to the height of the midrange driver. In any case at five feet miking distance (what he states he is using now) it shouldn't make a huge difference.. Remember too that as our friend Mark Winston, the champion of response graphs sites, the 4.2 is directional as hell with that ribbon tweeter, so off axis it will be even darker sounding than what we're hearing on axis. It doesn't get better. Even if it became magicaly balanced sounding with your ears at tweeter height, do you really want that in a speaker?

[@jari121]

@@williammiebach1798 Thanks for the information. I really don’t want speakers that need to be listened to from a single point.

[@eprojectEllie]

thanks, Microphones were placed about the same height of AMT and 3ft away.

[@williammiebach1798]

@@eprojectEllie Thank for that info. So you do adjust for speaker height then. I thought you were placing the mics at 5ft.distance now. Can you tell me, do you run these speakers in before you do the demo, and for how long?

[@Arashi_Tsunade]

It would be great to be able to hear the new Rega Kyte in your comparisons. Do you think it will be possible someday?

[@eprojectEllie]

I will make a plan, thanks you~

[@richardsummers2161]

Though this is entertaining, there is absolutely no way that anyone can and should make any objective decision by listening to a comparison like this on KZbin through any sort of listening device. There is no IRL when the speakers being listened to are not physically in the same room as you.

[@CristianIorga]

Sadly, a very cheap amp was used, rendering the comparison almost useless. I heard these speakers with way more expensive amps (Audiolab 8300A and Rotel RA-1572 MKII). Speakers were scaling with the better amps. Source was a Bluesound Node. From my experiments, these speakers will reach their full potential with something like A-S1200, but for sure it is a very expensive amp for these speakers. But the comparison would have been way more nice to take into consideration.

[@jari121]

Quite similar. Next Q350 vs R200, please.

[@eprojectEllie]

thanks, It will be soon~

[@metroboom25289]

Most wharfedale designs are tuned for midrange and bass performance. The opposite for Kef speakers who thrive on treble and liveliness

[@ec6843]

LOL KEF speakers are known to be on the warm side of neutral.

[@СергейШвецов-ъ5е]

Without going into details, KEF is the winner.

[@EricDSalisbury]

Was that a pun? Hehe

[@wox812able]

KEF has much more complete sound. I made my decision. thx a lot 4 that video

[@gameodyssey24]

I prefer kef more balance especially on rock, crash n metal...W on this kind of music W seem and feel not well separating

[@cedomirblanusa7413]

W:K=3:2

[@matiasmov1]

I prefer Kef.

[@best_sound]

The sound difference is not noticeable. Wharfedale EVO 4.2 sound brighter.

[@best_sound]

@@AdamsBrew78 One subwoofer is enough. Low frequencies do not participate in stereo effects

[@best_sound]

@@AdamsBrew78 At around 9 minutes, the Wharfedale EVO 4.2s sound better. Low frequencies are enough. A subwoofer is not needed.

[@best_sound]

@@AdamsBrew78 The subwoofer does not affect the stereo effects. The subwoofer creates a pleasant hall atmosphere. One subwoofer can be hidden anywhere in the room. Two subwoofers certainly look spectacular. And, if you have a room of more than 20 square meters, it is quite possible to purchase 2 subwoofers. Better speaker systems with separate bass and midrange - treble boxes..