Sorry, I don't agree with any of the above reviews.After years I was out of the hi-fi market, last year I bought a pair of Kef 103.4.
They sounded "bizarre". Sometime they were oustanding but sometime they were no more than decent.
What I finally discovered is that Kef + Amp. Meridian 551 + Cd Meridian 506 reproduce the sound exactly as it was recorded.
This means that if you play a badly recorded Cd you'll get disappointing sound quality, but if your source is a good one... oh boys, the sound will be the most clear and detailed ever listened to.
Forget the Kube (they have never been shipped with Kube from Kef).
And also forget the boom boom sound of the disco. You only get pure sound.
Yesterday I compared my 103.4 with B&W Matrix 802, Meridian digital speakers 5000 and new Kef reference model 3. The result is that among the four I should now buy the digital Meridian but I would trade my Kef with Meridian only if I had to add no more than 500 dollars.

I have these Loudspeakers for eight years now, and still enjoy their smooth and relaxed sound. They're not spectacular speakers. No heavy bass, no "sparkling" treble. Just music the way music should be. True sound colors and an impressive wide soundstage.Just one tuning tip: Originally my speakers tended to be somewhat harsh and "coloured" in the mid-range. This originated from resonances of the metal dome that is found at the back side of the mid-range unit. This dome separates the air-volumes seen by the mid-range unit and the bass units. I damped these resonances by applying self-adhesive strips of bitumen to the back side of the dome (can be bought as a car-accessoire for damping resonances of the coach-work). This improved the sound considerably.
As for the KUBE 2000. I have it and I like it. The bass is extended but still dry and well-defined. With bi-amping consider using the KUBE for the bass-units only. You loose tone-control for the treble but it makes things easier for the amplifier that controls the mid-high.

I've purchased this speakers about 3 years ago second hand, because of all HIFI equipment, dynamic speakersystems won't wear out for many years.
The KEF 103.4 is a 3-way system with two woofers and a uni-Q driver,
which is believed to work like a pointsource.
I use an Arcam delta 270 cd-player as front end, a KEF KUBE 200 active
speakerfilter and a QUAD 606II power amp.
Although I have enjoyed listening to the KEFs for about two years, I now have
certain reservations concerning the the overall performance of this speaker.
1. There is no extended base response without using the KEF KUBE 200.
2. The mid/low level ratio tends to a lack of base level.
3. There is a nasty harshness in the uppermid/lowerhigh sections
4. There is no treble extension

I've tried to compensate these problems with different amplifiers, front ends,
filters and pasive filter modifications. De results of these modifications were
that the overal frequency response in my room became more flat and the
listenability became more enjoyable, if not satisfying.
Although the high/mids were now relatively played at a lower volume,
the sharpness remained, so did the overall character of the speaker.
I think that the uni-Q driver has a big advantage over normal tweeter/mid-unit
setup in draining music from life, transparancy and listenability.
The KEF 103.3, although missing one woofer, is far more transparant and sounds
much more real and extended at both ends of the frequency curve than the newer
103.4 People who disagree and want to trade their 103.3 against my 103.4
are welcome.
It may seem that I think of the 103.4 as a poor speaker. This is not the case.
I only say that KEF has produced better speakers in this price range before.

I've purchased this speakers about 3 years ago second hand, because of all HIFI equipment, dynamic speakersystems won't wear out for many years.
The KEF 103.4 is a 3-way system with two woofers and a uni-Q driver,
which is believed to work like a pointsource.
I use an Arcam delta 270 cd-player as front end, a KEF KUBE 200 active
speakerfilter and a QUAD 606II power amp.
Although I have enjoyed listening to the KEFs for about two years, I now have
certain reservations concerning the the overall performance of this speaker.
1. There is no extended base response without using the KEF KUBE 200.
2. The mid/low level ratio tends to a lack of base level.
3. There is a nasty harshness in the uppermid/lowerhigh sections
4. There is no treble extension

I've tried to compensate these problems with different amplifiers, front ends,
filters and pasive filter modifications. De results of these modifications were
that the overal frequency response in my room became more flat and the
listenability became more enjoyable, if not satisfying.
Although the high/mids were now relatively played at a lower volume,
the sharpness remained, so did the overall character of the speaker.
I think that the uni-Q driver has a big advantage over normal tweeter/mid-unit
setup in draining music from life, transparancy and listenability.
The KEF 103.3, although missing one woofer, is far more transparant and sounds
much more real and extended at both ends of the frequency curve than the newer
103.4 People who disagree and want to trade their 103.3 against my 103.4
are welcome.
It may seem that I think of the 103.4 as a poor speaker. This is not the case.
I only say that KEF has produced better speakers in this price range before.

I picked up a pair of 103.4's about six months ago and agree that they are definitely strong in the upper-mids/lower-highs. They are also a very revealing speaker that sounds great if you've got a good source, but magnify a bad source/recording also. I do think they sound very true and lifelike. Most times I think they sound great (instrumental / jazz / good recording), but once in awhile I don't feel that way at all (pop / bad recording). I do think they're a pretty good speaker for what I picked them up for (about 1/3 of original cost), but wonder if it would be worth the money to upgrade to the newer model two's.
QUESTION: DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 103.4's AND THE NEWER REFERENCE MODEL TWO's IS VERY MUCH? I KNOW THEY DO HAVE THE SAME DRIVER CONFIGURATION, ETC. I REALIZE THEY PROBABLY HAVE A NEWER GENERATION UNI-Q DRIVER AND A FEW OTHER CHANGES, BUT AM WONDERING IF THERE IS THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN SOUND. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING IN RELATION TO THIS.

I've lived with my KEF 103.4 speakers for 8 years now in 5 different one bedroom apartments (each on the ground level). The listening room conditions of course changed each time and it always takes some serious listening to find the exact speaker positioning for them in relation to the placement of my furniture. With that said, I feel that if this speaker is optimally placed and spiked in the listening room (ground level low ceiling with attention to furniture placement)it can be run flat and will give you a exact reproduction of the source recording. This speaker is the most unforgiving speaker I've ever listened to. It doesn't matter what style of music it is, if it's a lousy recording it's unbearable for me to listen to these speakers and as one of the reviews eluded, I just want to throw them in the dumpster. However, if the recording is up to snuff I can sit in the sweet spot and just have the most wonderful feeling. It's like the speakers aren't even in the room. Adequate components are necessary of course and if I move into a house with a large listening area I will give serious auditioning time to the Model Three's. The KEF people do their homework when it comes to building a box speaker.

I purchased a pair of 103.4 after going gaga over it for 5 years. I heard it in a show room, and the sound emitted by the KEF stayed with me. I felt the 103 was the best choice among the other reference models because it was the lease colored sounding with the most neutral bass and treble response. The head room is amazingly satisfying for a speaker of this size too.

A client of mine was unloading his pair, so I got to buy it from him for only $700. I was walking on water. My joy didn't last too long because I had the hardest time trying to find a matching system to power these speakers.

For the last 5 years, I have tried numerous amps, using Nakamichi Pa-5, Denon POA8200, Adcom 5802, Luxman Integrated Amp, and, my current amp, Aragon 8002. I would love to try this speaker with some high end tube amps, but my budget wouldn't allow. The Nakamichi is a strong amp, but it made the speaker feel lifeless. The Denon sounds clean, but too soft. Luxman sounded rough. And the Aragon sounds very clean and controlled, but the bass is sharp.

I've also tried playing with the bi-amping connections. I once hooked two receivers, Nakamichi RE1, to each of the HF and LF. I turned the attenuator on the HF to 9 o'clock, and the LF to 11 o'clock. The high and mids were not as clean compared to using dedicated amps, but the bass was smooth. I can feel the bass being created from within the box as it oozes out of the 6inch port. It's a magical feeling.

So, I believe the key to really powering this speaker is by using two power amps. A moderate wattage for the HF and a more powerful amp for the LF. However, I can't afford this type of set up. So I haven't really tried this before.

The rest of my system consists of Marantz 63CDSE, Nakamichi Ca7 preamp, Audioquest Argents and Diamonds. I would love to get a Velodyne ULD sub to supplement my KEF.

The ability to reproduce a very detailed 3-dimensional soundstage

Sensitive to the amplifier used.

My experiences of the last few years made me eager to submit another review of these loudspeakers.

I always liked these boxes, but found them shy in the bass-region. The Kube-2000 I had did help, but only marginally.

Originally the speakers were driven by a Denon PMA1060 integrated amplifier. Wenn I changed to a LINN Pretek/Powertek combo the bass clearly improved, especially when I added a second Powertek for biamping.
Still I found these speakers to be rather shy and lean in the lower regions.

Last year I build my own pre-/poweramplifier combo that, due to its concept, has an extremely high damping factor.
(For those interested take a look at www.headwize.com)
Now, all of a sudden, the lowest tones are there with a pressure I never believed was possible. Terrific, even without the Kube! Actually, I discovered that the Kube is not as good as I always thought. It puts a slight veil over the sound.

Without the Kube these speakers sound glorious. Smooth and silky, with a very realistic soundstage. Play orchestral music and you can pinpoint every separate instrument. Listen to an ensemble of singers and every singer has his own, very well defined position in space. Never did I hear the nuances of Christy Baron's wonderfull voice so clearly before. Finally I understand why these speakers won a British Hifi Award. They simply can sound outstanding.

However, you need a good system. These babies are very sensitive to the amplification you use. This might well explain, why so many people feel disappointed by them. Their amplifier is simply not able to drive these boxes appropriately.

Happy listenings!

Similar Products Used:

various