Canton Reference 2023 - is it now Reference grade?

[dogmamann]

You seem to believe in magical differences which cannot be proven and you probably cannot be convinced they don't exist, no matter how much evidence is piled in front of you. Main reason being you have invested so much emotionally in the concept of "synergies" and being able to recognize them through years of cultivating advanced audiophile listening skills.

Belief in spiritual beings doesn't seem that far off in comparison.

I agree to this point, but at times apart from some guys many here have only owned one set of equipment(DAC, amp, speakers) and rest is all judged based on the theory. Measurement tells you the whole story but, I think it’s also important to know how big of a difference can they perceive when one parameter is varied. To have that atleast they must have exposure to some devices with these variations. Otherwise people are just oversimplifying things here.

For example, the canton reference 7k was called as bad speaker here in this forum since it had higher upper midrange distortion percentage when pushed higher. But at home, I had that speaker and now I have a kef reference 3 which doensnt have this „issue“. To my ears biota doesn’t have any audible distortion like the guys hear say. But what is audible is the dispersion, on paper Kef is around 60 degrees and canton is around 75 degrees but that’s a huge leap in terms of soundstage depth in real life. Also, canton projects things way into the room while kef stays in a line in front of me. I don’t know which is accurate but canton gives me the feel of in the middle of the music and Kef is more like infront of the music. Kef is more 3 dimensional compared to some entry level stuff like the elac debut references which I had listened some time back, but in terms of 3D soundstage it’s not a match for the canton reference 7k. I had demoed the reference 5k and the canton reference 7k next to each other and between them, there was a good improvement in soundstage width and depth. Compared to 5k, reference 3 is a huge step down in that department. But putting looks into perspective, kef just destroys all of them. They are amazingly good looking and is kind of a style statement.

 

[thewas]

I agree to this point, but at times apart from some guys many here have only owned one set of equipment(DAC, amp, speakers) and rest is all judged based on the theory. Measurement tells you the whole story but, I think it’s also important to know how big of a difference can they perceive when one parameter is varied. To have that atleast they must have exposure to some devices with these variations. Otherwise people are just oversimplifying things here.

For example, the canton reference 7k was called as bad speaker here in this forum since it had higher upper midrange distortion percentage when pushed higher. But at home, I had that speaker and now I have a kef reference 3 which doensnt have this „issue“. To my ears biota doesn’t have any audible distortion like the guys hear say. But what is audible is the dispersion, on paper Kef is around 60 degrees and canton is around 75 degrees but that’s a huge leap in terms of soundstage depth in real life. Also, canton projects things way into the room while kef stays in a line in front of me. I don’t know which is accurate but canton gives me the feel of in the middle of the music and Kef is more like infront of the music. Kef is more 3 dimensional compared to some entry level stuff like the elac debut references which I had listened some time back, but in terms of 3D soundstage it’s not a match for the canton reference 7k. I had demoed the reference 5k and the canton reference 7k next to each other and between them, there was a good improvement in soundstage width and depth. Compared to 5k, reference 3 is a huge step down in that department. But putting looks into perspective, kef just destroys all of them. They are amazingly good looking and is kind of a style statement.

Not a good analogy as the big difference is that for decent audio electronics the measured differences are so small that they are usually inaudible while loudspeakers measure vastly differently and thus sound also differently where the factor personal preference comes into play.

 

[dogmamann]

Not a good analogy as the big difference is that for decent audio electronics the measured differences are so small that they are usually inaudible while loudspeakers measure vastly differently and thus sound also differently where the factor personal preference comes into play.

Yes the differences here I mentioned are mostly on speakers. Therefore I am also bit sceptical about changing the amp from the NAD to anything to „rescue“ the Reference 3.

 

[thewas]

Yes the differences here I mentioned are mostly on speakers. Therefore I am also bit sceptical about changing the amp from the NAD to anything to „rescue“ the Reference 3.

Yes, if you want to "rescue" it please get a measurements microphone and a DSP/EQ.

 

[bodhi]

I agree to this point, but at times apart from some guys many here have only owned one set of equipment(DAC, amp, speakers) and rest is all judged based on the theory. Measurement tells you the whole story but, I think it’s also important to know how big of a difference can they perceive when one parameter is varied. To have that atleast they must have exposure to some devices with these variations. Otherwise people are just oversimplifying things here.

When it comes to DACs and amps the theory AND anecdotal experiences of vast amount of users is enough. When the evidence is strong enough it's just stupid to require people to have done the experiments themselves before having an opinion. You don't generally do that in real life. What would then be the point of science and professionals doing research and distilling the results to more easily understandable form?

In hifi that's just a lame argument usually used by subjectivists, basic ad hominem argument to try get around facts.

For example, the canton reference 7k was called as bad speaker here in this forum since it had higher upper midrange distortion percentage when pushed higher. But at home, I had that speaker and now I have a kef reference 3 which doensnt have this „issue“. To my ears biota doesn’t have any audible distortion like the guys hear say. But what is audible is the dispersion, on paper Kef is around 60 degrees and canton is around 75 degrees but that’s a huge leap in terms of soundstage depth in real life. Also, canton projects things way into the room while kef stays in a line in front of me. I don’t know which is accurate but canton gives me the feel of in the middle of the music and Kef is more like infront of the music. Kef is more 3 dimensional compared to some entry level stuff like the elac debut references which I had listened some time back, but in terms of 3D soundstage it’s not a match for the canton reference 7k. I had demoed the reference 5k and the canton reference 7k next to each other and between them, there was a good improvement in soundstage width and depth. Compared to 5k, reference 3 is a huge step down in that department. But putting looks into perspective, kef just destroys all of them. They are amazingly good looking and is kind of a style statement.

So, your experience doesn't match the measurements? Then what? How has that anything to do with anything? Your ears, room, speaker setup, EQ, definiton of soundstage or anything else could be the reason. Or maybe you just really happen to like the Cantons or the brand in general for one reason or another and that clouds your judgement? I don't know and I'm not claiming those things are true in this specific case, but those are generally the things to consider with subjective reviews.

 

[dogmamann]

Yes, if you want to "rescue" it please get a measurements microphone and a DSP/EQ.

Yeah it’s bit strange that the most room friendly speaker brand according to this forum needs lot of extra equipment to sound right while the one that was measuring not great per theory here was working well without any tweaks for me. Probably we need to get lucky with the rooms too. But then again the popular notion to recommend kefs because it works in rooms much easily is opinion formed with ignorance !

 

[JustJones]

Yeah it’s bit strange that the most room friendly speaker brand according to this forum needs lot of extra equipment to sound right while the one that was measuring not great per theory here was working well without any tweaks for me.

There ya go you figured it out, get rid of the Kef and get the Canton. I've auditioned Kef and didn't get them. They didn't need any "extra equipment " just the same equipment as any other spearker I've auditioned. No worries move on.

 

[ahofer]

But then again the popular notion to recommend kefs because it works in rooms much easily is opinion formed with ignorance !

I don't think we can extrapolate like that from one or two anecdotes about sighted impressions.

From what I can tell, I prefer Revel to KEF, due to broader directivity. I gather the Canton's share that characteristic It's a preference (and one with some trade-offs in terms of imaging precision).

 

[Bozon]

I agree to this point, but at times apart from some guys many here have only owned one set of equipment(DAC, amp, speakers) and rest is all judged based on the theory. Measurement tells you the whole story but, I think it’s also important to know how big of a difference can they perceive when one parameter is varied. To have that atleast they must have exposure to some devices with these variations. Otherwise people are just oversimplifying things here.

For example, the canton reference 7k was called as bad speaker here in this forum since it had higher upper midrange distortion percentage when pushed higher. But at home, I had that speaker and now I have a kef reference 3 which doensnt have this „issue“. To my ears biota doesn’t have any audible distortion like the guys hear say. But what is audible is the dispersion, on paper Kef is around 60 degrees and canton is around 75 degrees but that’s a huge leap in terms of soundstage depth in real life. Also, canton projects things way into the room while kef stays in a line in front of me. I don’t know which is accurate but canton gives me the feel of in the middle of the music and Kef is more like infront of the music. Kef is more 3 dimensional compared to some entry level stuff like the elac debut references which I had listened some time back, but in terms of 3D soundstage it’s not a match for the canton reference 7k. I had demoed the reference 5k and the canton reference 7k next to each other and between them, there was a good improvement in soundstage width and depth. Compared to 5k, reference 3 is a huge step down in that department. But putting looks into perspective, kef just destroys all of them. They are amazingly good looking and is kind of a style statement.

Because that distortion level was measured as Hi-Q and manifest itself on very high volume levels that you don't use at home. That was commented by John Atkinson as inaudible. I told that on the other thread but Kef talibans refused to accept it and kept saying that the R11 was a better speaker while they fail to acknowledge that most Kefs have sibilances on the Uni-Q, sound "slow" (or boring) and are difficult loads to the amplifiers. That is why many people buying Kefs by its marvelous spec sheet end returning them after trying them at home.

 

[dogmamann]

Because that distortion level was measured as Hi-Q and manifest itself on very high volume levels that you don't use at home. That was commented by John Atkinson as inaudible. I told that on the other thread but Kef talibans refused to accept it and kept saying that the R11 was a better speaker while they fail to acknowledge that most Kefs have sibilances on the Uni-Q, sound "slow" (or boring) and are difficult loads to the amplifiers. That is why many people buying Kefs by its marvelous spec sheet end returning them after trying them at home.

R11 is a good speaker for its closeout sale price. It was around 3000 euros in most stores back then and for that price it was good since it’s bass extension is good.

 

[dogmamann]

I don't think we can extrapolate like that from one or two anecdotes about sighted impressions.

From what I can tell, I prefer Revel to KEF, due to broader directivity. I gather the Canton's share that characteristic It's a preference (and one with some trade-offs in terms of imaging precision).

I don’t understand the imaging thing of kef. It’s great, but so did the canton. I found no advantage in my case!

 

[Bozon]

R11 is a good speaker for its closeout sale price. It was around 3000 euros in most stores back then and for that price it was good since it’s bass extension is good.

Yes it was a good value. But nothing to die for.

 

[dogmamann]

Yes it was a good value. But nothing to die for.

Did you also notice that kefs don’t have good separation of instruments like normal multi-way speakers ?

 

[ahofer]

Did you also notice that kefs don’t have good separation of instruments like normal multi-way speakers ?

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/gdX4XYo08vNvlERm35" width="480" height="400" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="

">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Bozon]

Did you also notice that kefs don’t have good separation of instruments like normal multi-way speakers ?

I wouldn't generalize to normal multi-way speakers. I noted congestion on the LS50 / Meta and the R series but didn't notice it on the Reference 3.

 

[BDWoody]

A bunch of posts moved here:

Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

Seems like so many review threads get challenged with: 1. Measurements are not everything. 2. You all never listen. 3. I trust my ears, not graphs. 4. I don't listen to graphs. I listen to music. 5. You all must not listen to music at all. 6. Why don't you all buy the best SINAD gear? 7...

audiosciencereview.com

Please continue that discussion in that thread.

 

[Crosstalk]

Yes it was a good value. But nothing to die for.

R11 has great directivity, bass extension along with the lowest distortion across the band for a speaker under 6-7k. Canton doesn't hold a candle against it. Its uneven, distorted, and has less extension. It has boosted highs, so for a person with high frequency hearing loss, it might appear neutral and resolving because he cannot hear the resolution on normal neutral speakers!

 

[ahofer]

R11 has great directivity, bass extension along with the lowest distortion across the band for a speaker under 6-7k. Canton doesn't hold a candle against it. Its uneven, distorted, and has less extension. It has boosted highs, so for a person with high frequency hearing loss, it might appear neutral and resolving because he cannot hear the resolution on normal neutral speakers!

Doesn't the Canton also have wider beam width/directivity? I've found I prefer that (after listening to a lot of KEFs). I haven't heard a Canton in decades, tho.

 

[Crosstalk]

Doesn't the Canton also have wider beam width/directivity? I've found I prefer that (after listening to a lot of KEFs). I haven't heard a Canton in decades, tho.

No Canton is too wide exciting wall reflections all over. Also its not even directivity like the KEFs. Kefs are nicely narrow and even.

 

[ahofer]

No Canton is too wide exciting wall reflections all over. Also its not even directivity like the KEFs. Kefs are nicely narrow and even.

Certainly even is better, but a lot of people like that room excitement (bipolars...). I prefer my Revels (and even Harbeths) over KEFs, and I think that's the primary difference. Although my old KEFs were great for Video.