the bass area of that 8'' from the linton's is more match for the dual 6.5'' from the R7
It would be indeed.
I have Tekton Impact Monitors (dual 6.5's per speaker)and they have about the same bass output as the Lintons. (to my ear the Tektons are a touch more articulate though and Lintons warmer)
So the above said I have several, inexpensive Dayton Audio 8" DIY 'not quite' subs that I use for various testing. Those are budget 8's
https://www.parts-express.com/Dayton-Audio-DCS205-4-8-Classic-Subwoofer-4-Ohm-295-200?quantity=1
Just 2 of these each in .9cuft ported boxes tuned to 35hrz have better and more available bass than either the Tektons or the Lintons, they also beat the afformentioned JBL L82's but not by much and I did prefer the absolute bass quality of the L82's so I would reccomend those be paired with substantial subs to make good gains(I used dual high output 15's crossed to the L82's at 50hrz)
There is no replacement for dispacement - and it is even better if it is a larger driver so sensitivity can be high. You can make a 6.5" woofer with huge xmax and therefore higher output potential but then you give up loads of sensitivity as the cone has to be very ridgid(thick and weighty) to handle 13mm of xmax. In an active that works but not in a passive where the lowest sensitivity driver sets the baseline.
The R3's woofer cone is quite thin and flexible even. I think to keep sensitivty resonable in the design. That R3 woofer is not a highoutput low bass driver.
All that goes without saying. I was referring to typical listening distance, and they can handle typical listening SPL - 80-85db perfectly crossed at 50-60Hz. People with bigger rooms and further LP don’t get R3s - but R7,R11.
Totally agree bigger woofers will have lower distortion at high SPL, will extend lower also. But my point isn’t to say they KEFs are better just that they are very capable, at lower crossover also, typically.
I hear yah. I do think the R3's are superb speakers. (if not excatly for me)
That said just to beat this drum one more post, I honestly think it is currently wishfull thinking in audiophiledome to have a pair of small woofer monitors that have size bellying bass (for farfield use in not small rooms). Decent, deep and extension bass sure -even very satisfying bass, but top tier 40-80hrz bass from a pair 6's. I have not found that pair yet. Probabily a marketing illusion with the possible exceptions of the Purifi and the Epique 6.5's - those DIY units might be close in the right hands.
My BMR monitors have just wonderful 40-80hrz bass at modest to mid loud SPL for example but paired with subs it is just better. Plus when some really heavy shhyt hits the subs will play music and not something else ---- and no port noise. (I ended up with 70hrz for the BMR HP with subs and they need a 32-35hrz/36dbo HP if running full range as ultra low bass hurts that 6.)
I mean if someone spends some real money on excellent speakers and great subs. Why try to work the R3's harder? There is no benefit of any kind. They can play reasonable sounds at 50hrz but honestly the sub will do much better there. There is no question unless the sub is of low quality. Sure untill you get a sub or if subs are not an option then go with letting the R3's handle the depths. Once the sub(s) are in play what is the point? Almost no 6.5" driver can fill a medium room with 50hrz bass that is clean, clear and dynamic and is also not producing IMD and compressing. I really think at 80-85db average SPL with peaking into the 90's the R3's need subs and 80hrz crossover unless the room is small. (in the high 80's avg SPl they def do) If you get time try setting up some similar sized monitors with subs and play around.
Well anyway, I am sorry for the tangent. Be cool to see what the full Rmeta story is.