• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

KEF R3 Speaker Review

dwkdnvr

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
418
Likes
698
I don't think anyone has claimed this (in the last comments).
It was said that "Some mention that they are not very subtle, and a bit harsh...". I then went into this, using the measurements as a basis.



Interpretation of measurements is anything but "sound-la-la-land", because this is exactly what measurements are made for. The interpretation I made is actually quite obvious if you look at the in-room responses of the R3 shown by @napilopez in post#866. There is in the mentioned range around 2-3kHz the in-room response a bit too prominent.
Must everyone see it that way? No, but my argumentation is based on measurements from different sources.

View attachment 84447


Take Two:

Okay,... anecdotal evidence is stupid, I got that.

;)

Those measurements are interesting. I'd still say that they are best approached not by cutting at ~2.8k, but by bringing up the 800-2.5k region. You might need a very slight cut at the peak, but bringing up the dip would appear to result in nice flat downward tilt.

I have a pair of R3s that I had used on my desktop where I quite liked them. When I tried them in the main space (a large open-concept area), the narrow(er) dispersion sounded a bit dull compared to what was there before (flat tapered baffle speakers). We're in the process of moving, and I have an opportunity to just go buy something like a pair of Revels, but am going to try the R3 + MiniDSP SHD + subs first. I'm intrigued as to what I find.
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,086
Location
.de, DE, DEU
Those measurements are interesting. I'd still say that they are best approached not by cutting at ~2.8k, but by bringing up the 800-2.5k region. You might need a very slight cut at the peak, but bringing up the dip would appear to result in nice flat downward tilt.
No objection on my part. The solution that sounds better is the better solution.

When using in-room measurement to check the result at the listening position, always keep in mind that the measuring microphone does not distinguish between vertical and horizontal radiation, but the human ear does to a considerable degree.
An even in-room FR does not automatically mean that the ear feels the same - and vice versa.
 
D

Deleted member 65

Guest
Whenever it is reported that a loudspeaker is supposed to sound "a bit harsh", distortions are always considered to be evildoers.
Even if distortion measurements do not give any clues.

Warning: Anecdotal story of an old man.
Years ago I tested different tweeters and midrange drivers in a loudspeaker that sounded harsh above a certain sound pressure level. The harsh sound was present at similar axis frequency response independent of the driver and this although HD as well as MD (multi-tone distortion) was always very low.

The frequency range 2-5kHz is especially critical and there the R3 shows a small problem in horizontal and vertical radiation.

With non-coaxial loudspeakers, the crossover frequency to the tweeter is often in the 2-3kHz range. This means that "sound energy" is destroyed vertically in this range by cancellation, which can compensate a little bit for a horizontal widening of the radiation - this is not possible with coaxial loudspeakers.

The R3 now shows a widening in radiation in the range of 2-3kHz both horizontally and vertically, which may cause the sound to become somewhat harsh at higher sound pressure levels - if this widening is not completely compensated by the axis frequency response (the axis frequency response should show a slight dip in this range).

So I would rather see the radiation as a possible problem than the influence of distortions.

Except the R3 would sound harsh even outdoors or in very large rooms with no close boundary surfaces, which would indicate distortions as a cause.

View attachment 84432

Just out of curiosity, had KEF XQ40 a few years back. Sold after having had them less then a year for reasons similar what’s been discussed here. Harsh sounding when SPL is a bit high and bland.
Found this measurement of the XQ40’s in a German mag. Not skilled enough make comparison between this measurement and the R3. Appreciate any insight on any similarities or not.

1600968461652.jpeg


1600968065614.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,086
Location
.de, DE, DEU
Just out of curiosity, had KEF XQ40 a few years back. Sold after having had them less then a year for reasons similar what’s been discussed here. Harsh sounding when SPL is a bit high and bland...
Not skilled enough make comparison between this measurement and the R3. Appreciate any insight on any similarities or not.
So I am by no means the "Doctor Dolittle" of speakers ;) Many statements can be justified with measurements, but sometimes you don't grasp the full complexity and it's no different than peddling fairy tales - keep that in mind.

Compared to many other loudspeakers, the radiation of the XQ40 is very even.
In this case I would pay attention to the range 2-4kHz and 4-6kHz.
2-4kHz: Are there two dips (which our brain hardly perceives) or a peak (in a wide dip)?
4-6kHz: This range provides a little more "sound energy" than the 2-4kHz range.

Now peddling fairy tales: I could imagine, for example, that in typical listening rooms distorted e-guitars and tightly struck cymbals might sound unpleasant at high sound pressure levels.

But, if you had said that the speaker sounded very pleasant and warm, I could have "justified" that with the measurements as well o_O

Predicting the sound on the basis of measurements is (for loudspeakers with good measurement results) extremely difficult (often 0.5dB in the high frequency range decide between "meh!" and "wow!"), justifying a listening impression with the measurements is easier ;)

Therefore it is not possible for me to tune a loudspeaker without listening - but the measurements help to find possible sources of error.
 
D

Deleted member 65

Guest
So I am by no means the "Doctor Dolittle" of speakers ;) Many statements can be justified with measurements, but sometimes you don't grasp the full complexity and it's no different than peddling fairy tales - keep that in mind.

Compared to many other loudspeakers, the radiation of the XQ40 is very even.
In this case I would pay attention to the range 2-4kHz and 4-6kHz.
2-4kHz: Are there two dips (which our brain hardly perceives) or a peak (in a wide dip)?
4-6kHz: This range provides a little more "sound energy" than the 2-4kHz range.

Now peddling fairy tales: I could imagine, for example, that in typical listening rooms distorted e-guitars and tightly struck cymbals might sound unpleasant at high sound pressure levels.

But, if you had said that the speaker sounded very pleasant and warm, I could have "justified" that with the measurements as well o_O

Predicting the sound on the basis of measurements is (for loudspeakers with good measurement results) extremely difficult (often 0.5dB in the high frequency range decide between "meh!" and "wow!"), justifying a listening impression with the measurements is easier ;)

Therefore it is not possible for me to tune a loudspeaker without listening - but the measurements help to find possible sources of error.

Thanks for the insights!
Replaced the XQ40’s with these and quite happy with them.
1601013353054.jpeg
 

Snoochers

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
187
Likes
70
Do you guys think the CI160ER would pair well with the R3/5/7s in a 9.1.6 system? They seem to be dirt cheap right now and I don't know why. I don't know anything about in-wall speakers unfortunately.
 

Snoochers

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
187
Likes
70
Do you guys think the CI160ER would pair well with the R3/5/7s in a 9.1.6 system? As a follow-up I did track down these measurements. It isn't much but maybe someone smarter than me can comment on whether or not these are decent in-wall/in-ceiling speakers?

https://www.shop.us.kef.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/documents/ciseries/Ci160ER-EDIT-NO-CROPS.pdf
I was also able to find the measurements for the higher end THX certified models:

https://www.shop.us.kef.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/documents/ciseries/Ci160RR-THX-EDIT-30-01-20.pdf

Are these significantly better? I'm not familiar with the presentation format of directivity index.
 

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,452
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
I was also able to find the measurements for the higher end THX certified models:

https://www.shop.us.kef.com/pub/media/wysiwyg/documents/ciseries/Ci160RR-THX-EDIT-30-01-20.pdf

Are these significantly better? I'm not familiar with the presentation format of directivity index.

Much better in those huge dips for the previous model in directivity index curve for 5 and 10kHz areas is now much less, to understand what happens when directivity index on objective paper show ripple resonances is related to how smooth responses is as we go off axis relative to on axis, for example see below animation for R3 where we see a relative beatifull smooth directivity index curve and for the lower graph we see the nine axis's that when avaraged form listening window curve in upper graph, if directivity index curve is having trouble or much ripple then for that lower graph curves will begin look like a mess with spread around in the curves especially where those ripple resonances is presented into directivity index..
Snoochers_x1x1_500mS.gif
 

Snoochers

Active Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
187
Likes
70
Ah so as usual a smooth line is better, eh? So the "R" THX model is significantly better than the "E" model. That doesn't surprise me because they're like 10x more expensive haha, but I was hoping they'd be more similar.

Why does the line only start going up at like 600hz in the chart I shared? The directivity index (red) has a lot more variation down all the way to 50hz in these R3 charts.
 

BYRTT

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
956
Likes
2,452
Location
Denmark (Jutland)
Ah so as usual a smooth line is better, eh? So the "R" THX model is significantly better than the "E" model. That doesn't surprise me because they're like 10x more expensive haha, but I was hoping they'd be more similar.....

Year as usual a smooth line is better and sorry it often means more expensive, we in theoretical and objective land so cant say what it means subjective when they get bandpass filtered in a 9.1.6 system, if one really can subjective notice going with the cheap or expensive one or some other solution.
.....Why does the line only start going up at like 600hz in the chart I shared? The directivity index (red) has a lot more variation down all the way to 50hz in these R3 charts.
Not that i know but will think the difference is because R3 is full space also called 4PI measured all 360º around in Amir's Klippel scanner and those KEF cuvers is half space also called 2PI measured 180º around because the wall mounting (baffle) blocks or hinders full space (4PI) acoustics to happen for the unit.
 

stevenswall

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 10, 2019
Messages
1,366
Likes
1,075
Location
Orem, UT
Unless like Amirm you prefer your bass like a bloated Kardashian butt. :p

Does he prefer bloated bass or extended bass? I don't think a smooth rise is an issue, and when I say I want more bass, I mean more deep bass, not early rolled off bass like this.

I'm truly amazed that these rank second. This is a serious recommendation for me. They go for 1/4 of the price of the leader!!

Shouldn't be too much of a surprise! Three way coaxials are a dream when it comes to dispersion, and if this had more even frequency response (maybe making it like the LS50 with a rounded face,) and more extended bass it might beat it!
 
Last edited:

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England
I don't think a smooth rise is an issue, and when I say I want more bass, I mean more deeper bass, not early rolled off bass like this.

I understand "more bass" as more prominent in level.
"More extended" is the ability to reproduce sound which is comparatively lower in frequency.
 

theyellowspecial

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
253
Likes
274
I was just being hyperbolic. IIRC Amirm likes a midbass bump in most of his reviews. Of course, anything other than neutral to my ears is bloated. I'm definitely outside of the HK preference grouping, preferring a neutral bass and narrow dispersion.
 
Top Bottom