1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

KEF KHT 1005.2's or KHT 2005's?

Discussion in 'Home Cinema Speakers' started by earthworm, Apr 11, 2004.

  1. earthworm

    earthworm
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Lancaster
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hiya,

    I'm in a bit of a quandary, maybe someone can help.
    I'm trying to decide between buying a set of new KHT 1005.2's or some second hand 2005's (ie not 2005.2's).

    What would you suggest? Are the new 1005.2's better sounding than the original 2005's or not??

    Anyone?
     
  2. Crocodile JD

    Crocodile JD
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,081
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    Tamworth, Staffs
    Ratings:
    +21
    I have the 2005.1 eggs, but i've not heard the 1005s so I don't know about the sound, but in the looks department the 2005s win hands down IMO, no contest. I would guess that the original eggs will still sound better as well given that the 1005s use a much smaller diver.

    Cheer

    Croc
     
  3. tan1415

    tan1415
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi,

    Biggest difference with the 2005.1 and .2 is really the upgraded subwoofer. They say the eggs has been improved. But i dont really believe that.

    IMO...go for the eggs and than replace the Sub you get with it.
     
  4. wookie

    wookie
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Have you actually listened to the KHT2005.2 system tan1415?

    i DOUBT IT.......

    The .2 now use the same 19mm Aluminimum dome tweeter as the KEF Q series.

    (KHT1005 sats use a similar although smaller Aluminium dome HF unit).

    The .1 satellites used a plastic film based tweeter.
    The .2 satellite speakers also use Neodynium magnets.

    All this = a better sound.
     
  5. Crocodile JD

    Crocodile JD
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2002
    Messages:
    1,081
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    41
    Location:
    Tamworth, Staffs
    Ratings:
    +21
    I'm sure it does, but the question was how do the mark 1s compare with the 1005s? The mark 1 eggs have a 100mm mid driver against the 75mm in 1005 and the sudb is 150w against 100w. I still think therefor that the mark 1s will probably bsound better.

    Croc
     
  6. Barend

    Barend
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +9
    I agree.
    The .2 eggs sound really better than the .1 version.
    I did not really expect much of a difference, but the sometimes nasty mid range lift was completely gone, no more headache when listening to a piano for a long time...
    One thing still sucks, no real deep bass below 40 Hz is produced!
    But I suppose the KEF engineers were just too lazy to find a solution for this!
    Cheers
    Barend:D
     
  7. BigH

    BigH
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    447
    Products Owned:
    1
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Hampshire
    Ratings:
    +8
    1005.2 vs 2005.1, no contest 2005.1 wins hands down. When all said and done you are not comparing eggs with eggs - pardon the pun!!

    2005.1 vs 2005.2 I'm not so sure, I had a set of mk1's for three years and recently upgraded to mk2's. Can't say I noticed a major difference. Certainly the sub was massively improved, having said that have have a Velo SPL1000 (750W RMS 1500W peak) no contest! Amazingly it is physically smaller than the Kef but it blows it away - 23 Hz cut off!!

    Go for the 2005.1

    BigH.
     
  8. Barend

    Barend
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2004
    Messages:
    804
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +9
    Still had the old eggs when the freshly laid ones arrived, so I compared them hands on...
    Agree on the KEF subs, new one goes deeper and is MUCH drier.
    Although it couldn't match my REL Q150e.
    But I agree a Velo wins on looks, man are these REL's butt ugly...
    But then again I am always having trouble producing cellar deep bass in my smallish listening quarters (3x4m).
    Cheerio
    Barend
     

Share This Page

Loading...