The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
D&B Q7 vs KV2 ES1.0 Effects Pedals, Units & Accessories
Old 12th February 2018
  #1
Here for the gear
 

Thread Starter
D&B Q7 vs KV2 ES1.0

Hi guys. I’m wondering if anyone can help....

Basically I use a KV2 ES1.0 system (ES1.0 and ES2.5 sub per side) and recently heard a D&B system that I liked the sound of (2 x Q7 and 2 Q subs per side ran with 2 x D12 amps)

Has anyone had the chance to use both of these systems and in their opinion what was best for them? I’m just after people’s opinions on both and how they compare them with each other.

Thanks in advance guys.
Old 12th February 2018
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
I have used both on many occasions. Using only two Q cabs per side is not really going to give you a great impression of what the Q can do. In fact I have never used only two per side so my experience may be a little less than applicable with this. If running 4 x Q per side I would say that the Q cabs will output a little more low/low mid than the KV2 ES1.0 system however the KV2 system will be by far cleaner and the sub will be a lot more musical and deep.

So...
KV2 Audio ES system - slightly cleaner, deeper and smother
D&B "Q" - potentially more lower mid punch and warmth

Hope that is a little helpful at least.
Old 12th February 2018
  #3
Lives for gear
 

if renting additional boxes is an issue, d&b are probably more common/widespread

(i'm still satisfied with the q-series; cannot comment on kv2 as i just used them once under difficult circumstances)
Old 12th February 2018
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
I’ve used a lot of d&b q stuff over the years and bit of the kv2. My personal experience is that the 2.5 subs go a little lower, the q sub is a little more real, but then it’s a standard front facing driver. The q7 is a good speaker and like all d&b goes loud. The above comment that the es1.0 is slightly cleaner is a fair assessment, however, it’s less real sounding in the mid, you are aware that it’s a “speaker”, from that point of view I prefer the kv2 ex12 which I think is the best in the range. Another point, kv2 unfortunately have high depreciation and unless you have money to burn or a lot of regular work the d&b will be a far better investment, has client appeal and will be easier to cross hire. It’s up to you to decide what is important to you, personally I’m happy mixing on both, would probably buy the d&b if it were my money.
Old 12th February 2018
  #5
Lives for gear
 
mojo filters's Avatar
 

I'm a big fan of Q series, and despite being superceded by V (in some respects) it's still a relevant and very useful line of speakers. For flown arrays indoors, I still find Q more capable than many comparable mid format line array boxes - and they seem particularly well behaved even when used in relatively short hangs.

However as a regular ES user, I'd normally prefer the KV2 rig, if the alternative was 2 Q7s over 2 Q subs per side, unless I really needed extra output via ability to add more boxes. I also think the ES tops are more compact and visually appealing by comparison.

The ES sounds nicer to me, but it's not as flexible or expandable as an inventory of Q. The one weak link in your system could be the KV2 2.5 sub.

Normally the ES rigs I use are with a pair of 1.8 subs per side, and they are very impressive - even with demanding bass heavy programme material such as EDM.

I've heard an ES system that attempted to extract the maximum bass output from 1 Epak with a pair of 2.6 subs per side (the 8 Ohm version of the 2.5) but whilst there may have been a bit more output, I prefer the depth of the 1.8s.

Of course ES runs the subs quite high compared to many modern systems, crossing over at 125Hz. However KV2 seem to have really worked some magic in building their capable and compact sub enclosures, with top end 18 Sound drivers.

Are you just looking for subjective sound quality opinions, or are you actually considering swapping an ES system for some d&b boxes? If the latter, we really need to know more about the use case scenario. It's not as simple as just stating one is better than the other.
Old 12th February 2018
  #6
Here for the gear
 

Thread Starter
Hey thanks for that matey. I use the Kv2 system for my band. Drums, guitar, bass, keys and 4 vocals.

I’m not wanting to swap systems I’m thinking of buying the Q stuff too (once I’ve heard them both side by side) we’re moving into the small theatre route and I’m not sure what system is better for the all round thing I do. I play to venues between 200-1000.

Michael.
Old 12th February 2018
  #7
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo filters View Post
I'm a big fan of Q series, and despite being superseded by V (in some respects) it's still a relevant and very useful line of speakers. For flown arrays indoors, I still find Q more capable than many comparable mid format line array boxes - and they seem particularly well behaved even when used in relatively short hangs.
It's probably fair to say that they were superseded by Y series than V, V has always struck me as being the in-between system between Q and J. Y is indeed a very very capable and nice sounding system, V is great too, but is really a larger format solution for bigger spaces than Q.

Personally, I have spent a huge amount of time on Q series, and have always found it capable, clean and potent. The biggest downside to Q is probably the old school flying hardware (none captive link bars), you can usually make it sound very very good with minimal tweaking.

I've done more corporate/wedding type gigs than I could ever count in hotel ballrooms using 2xQ7's and a qsub aside (using the built in crossovers in the amps) sat on top of a b2 on each side (in infra mode and fed from the mono bus/an aux), and have never really felt that they were lacking anything, it's a very easy system to mix on.

And as lots of places are starting to dump there Q series to replace it with Y, it can be bought very cheaply, same goes for D12's as people move over to D20's/80's, plus the wider ecosystem is great (r10, arraycalc, doing cardio just with a setting in the amps etc...)

KV2 I haven't used nearly as extensively, it sounds fine, the system is probably a bit less flexible (you only have one choice of cabinet dispersion IIRC), and as far as I'm aware, there's no prediction software etc.. for the KV2 ecosystem, which may or may not be an issue for you.

If I had to buy one of those systems, I would probably default to Q, especially for a rental house, as being able to mix 1's 10's and 7's in a system is a very valuable asset for making a flexible system.

That said, if I was buying any system of that sort of size, I would be having a very good look at Y series as well, and probably ARCS and Kara/Kiva as well.
Old 12th February 2018
  #8
Lives for gear
 

I don’t have much experience with the KV2 system and can’t talk about the sound, but these systems are so different that I can’t imagine that sound quality is the only yardstick to measure them by. They (KV2) don’t serm to be nearly as flexible as the q7 system especially in regards to expansion with a 90° horizontal coverage.

I think it’s more important to see which system will suite your needs best instead of just concentrating on which system sounds “better”. In any case I think it’s really a question of what people prefer (which is subjective) because I don’t think either sounds bad.
A
Old 13th February 2018
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Aisle 6's Avatar
I also agree with the comments that the KV2 system is less flexible than a Q system. Having said that, once you scale KV2 into into a double ES system it is a completely different system. The HF becomes asymmetrical in horizontal dispersion and it can be very successfully ground stacked or flown. When flown it is a very potent system indeed. So although not strictly scalable, it will represent very well for capacity crowds of small to quite large. It will definitely surprise you what you can do with a double ES rig flown. So it is scalable to a point.

This is the point that forced my purchase of an Adamson S10 rig to fit below a double ES and then scale to well above it. The S10 rigging is sensational and it's weights and measures are extremely favourable. Think the output and performance of a "V" rig with the size and weight of a "Y" rig and you would be very close. "Q" is fine and I really have no complaints, but it has never rocked my world. It is however a very well excepted rental solution.
Old 13th February 2018
  #10
Lives for gear
 
mojo filters's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aisle 6 View Post
I also agree with the comments that the KV2 system is less flexible than a Q system. Having said that, once you scale KV2 into into a double ES system it is a completely different system. The HF becomes asymmetrical in horizontal dispersion and it can be very successfully ground stacked or flown. When flown it is a very potent system indeed.
I'm not especially familiar with an ES system arrayed 2 tops per side. As I recall they suggest 2 box arrays are stacked or flown horizontally, with the mid/high section rotated, and mirrored so the HF horns are top and bottom, with the mid sections together.

I'm curious as to why that would change the dispersion to an asymmetrical pattern? Wouldn't it simply create 2 boxes with the same 90° x 40° dispersion, providing a constant 80° of vertical coverage assuming the cabinets are perfectly splayed?
Old 13th February 2018
  #11
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mojo filters View Post
I'm not especially familiar with an ES system arrayed 2 tops per side. As I recall they suggest 2 box arrays are stacked or flown horizontally, with the mid/high section rotated, and mirrored so the HF horns are top and bottom, with the mid sections together.

I'm curious as to why that would change the dispersion to an asymmetrical pattern? Wouldn't it simply create 2 boxes with the same 90° x 40° dispersion, providing a constant 80° of vertical coverage assuming the cabinets are perfectly splayed?
I’ve been wondering about this too and can’t figure out how it works.
Old 14th February 2018
  #12
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aisle 6 View Post
I have used both on many occasions. Using only two Q cabs per side is not really going to give you a great impression of what the Q can do. In fact I have never used only two per side so my experience may be a little less than applicable with this. If running 4 x Q per side I would say that the Q cabs will output a little more low/low mid than the KV2 ES1.0 system however the KV2 system will be by far cleaner and the sub will be a lot more musical and deep.

So...
KV2 Audio ES system - slightly cleaner, deeper and smother
D&B "Q" - potentially more lower mid punch and warmth

Hope that is a little helpful at least.
The OP is asking about a Q7 which is a 75*40 point source speaker. I don't think that 4 of them per side would be a good system.
Maybe you were thinking about the Q1 which is a line array module that you need more than a couple per side to make the system work properly.
Q7 is a relatively compact, loud and great sounding speaker with a well controlled pattern that can be also used as a down fill for the Q1 array. Q7 also sounds a bit clearer than an array of Q1s.

I think that the Q7 is one of the better investments you can make.
Old 14th February 2018
  #13
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetam View Post
The OP is asking about a Q7 which is a 75*40 point source speaker. I don't think that 4 of them per side would be a good system.
Maybe you were thinking about the Q1 which is a line array module that you need more than a couple per side to make the system work properly.
Q7 is a relatively compact, loud and great sounding speaker with a well controlled pattern that can be also used as a down fill for the Q1 array. Q7 also sounds a bit clearer than an array of Q1s.

I think that the Q7 is one of the better investments you can make.
I have seen them arrayed horizontally...the Q7 is fitted with a rotatable horn which allows horizontal and vertical arrays, d&b describes it as the near field element in Q1 arrays....

So yes, you can have 4 of them arrayed horizontally, this versatility is one reason they are so desirable for a lot of different situations.
Old 14th February 2018
  #14
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
I have seen them arrayed horizontally...the Q7 is fitted with a rotatable horn which allows horizontal and vertical arrays, d&b describes it as the near field element in Q1 arrays....

So yes, you can have 4 of them arrayed horizontally, this versatility is one reason they are so desirable for a lot of different situations.
Yes, you can array them, maybe I was a bit too harsh, but from my experience they sound better alone.
Old 14th February 2018
  #15
Lives for gear
 

One of the most important factors are the specific musical demands of various performance genres. Low end (sub 50 hz) punch for rock VxS primary delivery of the 80-200 hz range for acoustic music require systems designed to accommodate these differences for best sonic results. I bought my ES system 13 years ago and the ability to use from one up to three 1.5 bass bins that deliver pristine acoustic amplification from 40 to 125 HZ fits perfectly the demands of the acoustic Americana and Bluegrass we do. We have scalability from 200 to 1,000 seats with crystal clear transparent delivery in the most user friendly plug up and play point source system on the market. I high pass the bass at 40hz, guitar at 82hz and all other channels at the bottom of their primary range: the smooth cross over from the 15s to the 12 inch low mid in the three way top is as musical as any studio monitor I have ever heard. I am not in the rental business and also I am not pursuing pop or rock SR but 13 years of dependable service for the specific demands of my work flow make my ES system as relevant today as it was when I bought it 13 years ago.
Hugh
Old 14th February 2018
  #16
Lives for gear
 

How do you array the tops when you need more coverage/power?
Old 14th February 2018
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
How do you array the tops when you need more coverage/power?
With the es 1.0 you rotate the horns and mount them on their side one on top of the other with the hf horns at the bottom and at the top, mf horns together.

There range tend to work on the similar principle to Danley, although they are traditional “point source” rather than Danley “absolute point source”. Of course both systems ultimately will require in fills in almost any real world concert scenario.

As mentioned above, the es 1.0 is a good speaker, though I think the mid intergration on them isn’t the most neutral. From that point of view, I much prefer the ex 12 sonically. As others have pointed out, q series are easy to use and sound very decent.
Old 14th February 2018
  #18
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
With the es 1.0 you rotate the horns and mount them on their side one on top of the other with the hf horns at the bottom and at the top, mf horns together.
Thanks for the info, are you limited to two boxes per stack?
Old 15th February 2018
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
Thanks for the info, are you limited to two boxes per stack?
I believe that this system is intended for up too one/two thousand people max and above that you head up the range until you hit the really big vh 5.0 system.

My opinion is the real pup we are all being sold is the amount of spl power we need. I read an article that discussed noise and spl on the main stage at Glastonbury. The article claimed that they were succeeding in successfully controlling noise and claimed that they were hitting a peak of 103db at foh during a Who set. As for is about 60 m from the hangs, this represents a maximum of 36db drop meaning 139db peak at 1 m. You don’t need 4 16 cab lines to produce this. I’m glad to see some manufacturers showing a different approach and a greater diversity of top quality products.
Old 15th February 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I believe that this system is intended for up too one/two thousand people max and above that you head up the range until you hit the really big vh 5.0 system.

My opinion is the real pup we are all being sold is the amount of spl power we need. I read an article that discussed noise and spl on the main stage at Glastonbury. The article claimed that they were succeeding in successfully controlling noise and claimed that they were hitting a peak of 103db at foh during a Who set. As for is about 60 m from the hangs, this represents a maximum of 36db drop meaning 139db peak at 1 m. You don’t need 4 16 cab lines to produce this. I’m glad to see some manufacturers showing a different approach and a greater diversity of top quality products.
With all due respect, I don’t really see how these two things are related. I’ve played Glastonbury many times and the problem is that the festival is simply too big for its location, which is too close to a residential area. If they want to rest comfortably within the law they should limit the crowd and use a smaller system.

There are times when you need a big ass system for the coverage and power you want...no way around that.

I cant say too much about this system because I don’t know enough about it, but I see this as a limitation to its flexibility, unless of course you stay below the limit, and this is where the Q7 kills it...just add more boxes as the situation requires.

Last edited by Samc; 15th February 2018 at 02:42 AM..
Old 15th February 2018
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Roland's Avatar
I was talking more in relationship to the kv2. In reality it doesn’t scale as such,you need different lines for larger projects. I personally think the same is true for q7’s. About 4 of them or you are into something bigger, or a distributed system.

Going back to the original poster, all we are discussing is probably well outside of what he is looking for (I’m guessing a pair of tops/subs) that will cover everything from a bar gig to 500 in a marquee. Adding extra kit probably doesn’t come into it as it probably will have to fit in the van with the rest of the bands kit. I applaud anyone than takes their sound seriously, but as we all know, one size fitting all will often be a compromise.

Last edited by Roland; 15th February 2018 at 08:54 AM..
Old 15th February 2018
  #22
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post
I have seen them arrayed horizontally...the Q7 is fitted with a rotatable horn which allows horizontal and vertical arrays, d&b describes it as the near field element in Q1 arrays....

So yes, you can have 4 of them arrayed horizontally, this versatility is one reason they are so desirable for a lot of different situations.
May i introduce myself as a long time user of the Q System beginning from the first speakers that were heard in Germany.

This 'four wide Q7 horizontal array' is neither recommended by the manufacturer nor does it make sense from a 'dispersion' point of view. Lets view angle versus frequency from HF to LF:
Rotating the horns will give you 40° in the new horizontal plane for each element and a summary of 85° which will give you an interference producing overlap in the HF range when packed close to the angle given by the enclosure. In the vertical plane you will have 70° in the HF that makes nearly no sense in any real acoustic environments.
Between 1200 Hz and 700 Hz you get a small slice of narrowing the horizontal dispersion angle depending on the coupling of the 10" speakers that will be unwanted in most cases depending on the environment but needs a level drop in the System EQ.
Furthermore as i know there is no flying frame or other certified hardware that makes you fly and tilt such an array.

The Q7 is a fantasic loudspeaker either for single use or for "multiple single" use in a distributed and delayed system but not so much for a four wide "horizontal point source array".

Last edited by gundula; 15th February 2018 at 11:25 AM..
Old 15th February 2018
  #23
Lives for gear
 

I auditioned both the EX12 & EX10 wedges and much preferred the 10inch. Again this has direct relevance to the acoustic genre where I work: seamless sonic reproduction of the primary range won the day. For some venues I use a single EX10 for FOH center fill for both the ES system, when we are using bass and our CP5 piano, or EX10s on poles for very small Bluegrass or guitar pull gigs.
Roland is absolutely right: these discussions usually wind up comparing large venue touring protocols when the vast majority of us are routinely dealing with less than 1,000 seats. In the past most of the festivals we worked had competent touring SR and today most all of the 1,000+ seat venues we work have decent to very good custom fixed SR installations.
Factors involved with SR gear decisions for a performing ensemble need to deal with a competent assessment of real VxS perceived needs. Mics and monitoring are always at the top of the list, these are universal needs for all gigs. The next decision deals with processing: are you going to provide your own console mgt. or depend on what ever the venue offers? Long ago, for many reasons, we decided to provide all processing for our concert work and deliver a two mix to the house console in venues with good installed gear. In the event you are going to provide your own processing then a decision pursuant to FOH speaker systems will be necessary: At this point it is absolutely necessary to ascertain the predictable range of seats you will need to be able to cover with your self contained SR FOH system. While there are some linear aspects between SR for 250 VxS 2,500 seats, we should remember they really are in two different worlds.
My KV2 ES system scales perfectly between 100 up to 1,000 seats and that includes all the FOH that I ever intend to provide!
Hugh
Old 15th February 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gundula View Post
The Q7 is a fantasic loudspeaker either for single use or for "multiple single" use in a distributed and delayed system but not so much for a four wide "horizontal point source array".
...and as a powerfull drumfill on top of a q-sub
Old 15th February 2018
  #25
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roland View Post
I was talking more in relationship to the kv2. In reality it doesn’t scale as such,you need different lines for larger projects. I personally think the same is true for q7’s. About 4 of them or you are into something bigger, or a distributed system.

Going back to the original poster, all we are discussing is probably well outside of what he is looking for (I’m guessing a pair of tops/subs) that will cover everything from a bar gig to 500 in a marquee. Adding extra kit probably doesn’t come into it as it probably will have to fit in the van with the rest of the bands kit. I applaud anyone than takes their sound seriously, but as we all know, one size fitting all will often be a compromise.
What you said about the Q system is incorrect, and a system that scales up is not a one size fits all system.

Many manufacturers are moving towards modular and scalable systems for obvious reasons...Hugh has owned his system for 13 years, what happens if he wanted to expand for more power and different coverage...buy a new system?

When I had my ARCS system expansion was a simple process of adding more boxes...not buying a new system, the Q system is similar in that regard and is probably even more flexible than the ARCS system.

Again, it is important to point out that I have nothing against the performance of this system per say...this observation however is important for some situations.

Last edited by Samc; 15th February 2018 at 03:27 PM..
Old 15th February 2018
  #26
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samc View Post

When I had my ARCS system expansion was a simple process of adding more boxes...not buying a new system, the Q system is similar in that regard and is probably even more flexible than the ARCS system.
Yes this works for ARCS but no this does not work for Q7!
Old 15th February 2018
  #27
Lives for gear
 

Sam, at the risk of being a bit redundant 13 years ago when shopping for a system that would see me out I was 64 years of age and had been in the business for more than 30 years and had a very clear picture of my future SR needs. They did not then, or now, include any aspiration to be in the business of sound reinforcement rentals of either gear or SR services or managing gear to provide turn key SR for more than 1,000 seats. My work flow then as now was to provide an ideal recording environment for both studio and live concert capture (and a bit of video from time to time) of various ensembles I am personally involved with. Given the fact that most of our concert work today is in venues that have excellent SR installations the ES FOH stacks are seldom ever used: they stay in a trailer in my garage ready to go when or if I need them. At 77 years of age there is zero chance I will ever need a bigger system however you are exactly right about young folks starting out in their touring journey: a modular system they can manage and afford is a very good idea!
Hugh
Old 15th February 2018
  #28
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gundula View Post
May i introduce myself as a long time user of the Q System beginning from the first speakers that were heard in Germany.

This 'four wide Q7 horizontal array' is neither recommended by the manufacturer nor does it make sense from a 'dispersion' point of view. Lets view angle versus frequency from HF to LF:
Rotating the horns will give you 40° in the new horizontal plane for each element and a summary of 85° which will give you an interference producing overlap in the HF range when packed close to the angle given by the enclosure. In the vertical plane you will have 70° in the HF that makes nearly no sense in any real acoustic environments.
Between 1200 Hz and 700 Hz you get a small slice of narrowing the horizontal dispersion angle depending on the coupling of the 10" speakers that will be unwanted in most cases depending on the environment but needs a level drop in the System EQ.
Furthermore as i know there is no flying frame or other certified hardware that makes you fly and tilt such an array.

The Q7 is a fantasic loudspeaker either for single use or for "multiple single" use in a distributed and delayed system but not so much for a four wide "horizontal point source array".
Nobody said the array must be tight packed...but when arrayed vertically they are tight packed without problems. If you use a single box the vertical dispersion will still be 75°...why is it okay for one box but a problem for four???

At least two experienced people here have worked on wide dispersion systems that sounded good...these arguments are moot in my opinion.
Old 15th February 2018
  #29
Gear Nut
 

Haha, Nobody seriously has worked successfully on a wide splayed horizontal array of four Q7 as you mentioned above. You didn't say 'wide dispersion system' ... you said 'four Q7'. Same as it ever was my dear forum hero ...
Old 15th February 2018
  #30
Lives for gear
 

Here we go with the snarky foolishness again...you win.
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump