Quick KEF R3 vs Reference 201/2 vs LS50 measurements

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

If there was an active R3, KEF would sell shitloads of them..

Many of ASR members just EQ their R3 and add 2 subwoofers, you have a very Hi-End setup doing that.

 

[MarkWinston]

LS50m are not flat, it has some kind of BBC dip and a little more energy than normal at 5khz, general very balanced.
But it's all about taste too, the R series have different FR and also the ls50 OG and Metas, the thing is the R3 can play much louder and cleaner than the metas without IMD, because yo have a lot of headroom you can EQ them, which is pretty easy .

Personally i like waye more the warm FR from the R series towers, it has the warmer and clean mids that i like. I found the bookshelf lack of body and warmth.

https://imgur.com/9ebSjJD

From your images alone, neither is flat. They are all 'good' with no real spikes or dips. I wouldnt say the R7 has cleaner mids than the Metas, in fact the Meta is one of the speakers at any reasonable price range that I heard that has the cleanest mids.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

From your images alone, neither is flat. They are all 'good' with no real spikes or dips. I wouldnt say the R7 has cleaner mids than the Metas, in fact the Meta is one of the speakers at any reasonable price range that I heard that has the cleanest mids.

It depends, the mids from R7 are thicc and smooth, the metas are more balance with less weight/brighter. The thing is the r3 are smooth but lack the weight/warmth
Both can be clean in their own voicing, the R series have ultra low distortion, anyway the R series haven't IMD like LS50m the another fact from R series is the mid range can play louder with lower distortion, that's why i did say cleaner mids, if you don't like the voice a little EQ never hurts, but you don't like EQ the speakers, EQ the speakers its an art.

 

[tecnogadget]

@Zvu Some of us are aware of your great contribution experimenting with the R300 on different forums. But have you had the opportunity to do the same with the R3, or at least long lasting auditioning ? Sometimes I’m confused as if you are talking about the old or new series bookshelf in this regard. Cheers

 

[tecnogadget]

The thing is the r3 are smooth but lack the weight/warmth.

All right…but where is the data that can back up the claim ?? I’ve read that before, but is always the same case, some individual reports the subjetive opinion that it “lacks weight/warmth” but never along data that correlates…for every one of those you have 10 other users enjoying them and not having the same complaint.
I’m sure the way Amir handled that review must have influenced this to some degree (first not liking them, then realizing a room mode was the cause, after that rectifying but updating the front page several months after, and to this very day you have to dig trough several thread pages to find the link to that realization). Plus the fact this was one of the early Klippel measurements, and one of the first highest preference score outcomes, smoothest FR & Directivity, etc. The expectation on that particular one was really high, and no wonder a few people could have very high expectations bias and then be disappointed…I find it in fact natural. You don’t get to know the conditions that few people that complained did their assessments, of where did they came from…did they previously owned overemphasized “weight/warmth” speakers ? Were they used to a more analytical presentation?.
Other reviewers like Napilopez did like the speaker, Erin’s didn’t have a single flinch or complaint on his subjective evaluation…

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

All right…but where is the data that can back up the claim ?? I’ve read that before, but is always the same case, some individual reports the subjetive opinion that it “lacks weight/warmth” but never along data that correlates…for every one of those you have 10 other users enjoying them and not having the same complaint.
I’m sure the way Amir handled that review must have influenced this to some degree (first not liking them, then realizing a room mode was the cause, after that rectifying but updating the front page several months after). And also the fact this was one of the early Klippel measurements, and one of the first highest preference score outcomes, smoothest FR & Directivity, etc. The expectation on that particular one was really high, and no wonder a few people could have very high expectations bias and then be disappointed…I find it in fact natural. You don’t get to know the conditions that few people that complained did their assessments, of where did they came from…did they previously owned overemphasized “weight/warmth” speakers ? Were they used to a more analytical presentation?.
Other reviewers like Napilopez did like the speaker, Erin’s didn’t have a single flinch or complaint on his subjective evaluation…

I prefer a bit warm or smooth sounding speakers rather than a correct and I dislike bright speakers. Sorry for don't mention it. I would change what i said to:'' The thing is the r3 are smooth but lack the weight/warmth to my taste, and i don't wanna use subwoofers '', but the R3 change a lot with subwoofers. But the problem is I don't wanna subwoofers.

If you look into the data, the R3, R7 and R11 the only difference is the woofer its adding sensitivity



I have the R300, i really like the performance but its kind of bright tunning, when i used them i add some filters for smooth the speakers, i don't have problem doing that but with the R7 i don't use any filter..

My plan wasn't have the R7 but i bought them at the R3, 2nd hand price, but KEF R3 + DUAL SUBS > R7.

 

[MarkWinston]

Put the R3 next to the Meta and listen is all I can say. The R3 is not bad, but nothing great and Amir's review doesnt have a thing to do with assessment of people that have heard both side by side. The R3 is nowhere near perfect and is no better than the Metas objectively besides the obvious bass and distortion capabilities.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Put the R3 next to the Meta and listen is all I can say. The R3 is not bad, but nothing great and Amir's review doesnt have a thing to do with assessment of people that have heard both side by side. The R3 is nowhere near perfect and is no better than the Metas objectively besides the obvious bass and distortion capabilities.

Yeah but that's the fun thing.. you can boost the bass from KEF R3 using EQ, also the woofers in r3 give higher SPL than the woofer in the r300. I have the R300.

 

[tecnogadget]

Put the R3 next to the Meta and listen is all I can say. The R3 is not bad, but nothing great and Amir's review doesnt have a thing to do with assessment of people that have heard both side by side. The R3 is nowhere near perfect and is no better than the Metas objectively besides the obvious bass and distortion capabilities.

I think both are great speakers, that serves different purposes/strategies…otherwise KEF would only sell 1 instead of two models.
But one must be blind to not spot which one has every single curve smoother than the other one…plus the lower overall distortion, lower IMD risk, more extended bass, etc. It seriously goes against facts and common sense.

Another thing I can’t understand is how the first graph is “nothing great”, but the second one is great ? It’s quite contradictory. It would make more sense if both were “nothing great” since they are so similar (not my personal opinion)…
Never forget the fact when comparing two speaker, with very similar midrange-treble, but different bass extensions…since we don’t live in an ideal world…sometimes “better” is “worse”…meaning more bass capabilities (which is desirable) will indeed have higher possibilities of coupling or activating room modes/ standing waves…It happening more often than people think, reality is the mayority of online tests are not conducted with perfect room acoustics below 300Hz or DSP.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

…plus the lower overall distortion, lower IMD risk, more extended bass, etc. It seriously goes against facts and common sense.

I'd pick the R3, with EQ+Microphone you can have a better FR than the stock, a guy here was using a mic and dual subs and got a very nice FR 20hz-20kh.

 

[MarkWinston]

I think both are great speakers, that serves different purposes/strategies…otherwise KEF would only sell 1 instead of two models.
But one must be blind to not spot which one has every single curve smoother than the other one…plus the lower overall distortion, lower IMD risk, more extended bass, etc. It seriously goes against facts and common sense.

View attachment 164582View attachment 164583
Another thing I can’t understand is how the first graph is “nothing great”, but the second one is great ? It’s quite contradictory. It would make more sense if both were “nothing great” since they are so similar (not my personal opinion)…
Never forget the fact when comparing two speaker, with very similar midrange-treble, but different bass extensions…since we don’t live in an ideal world…sometimes “better” is “worse”…meaning more bass capabilities (which is desirable) will indeed have higher possibilities of coupling or activating room modes/ standing waves…It happening more often than people think, reality is the mayority of online tests are not conducted with perfect room acoustics below 300Hz or DSP.

Ive never claimed that one was greater than the other on charts. All Im saying is listen to both side by side like many who prefer the Metas did, then decide. Ive also made it very clear the R3 only has bass and SPL on its side, besides that, nothing else. Like a few here, I prefer the mids and treble of the Metas over the R3 anytime anyday. Oh, and whichever way you put it, the fr graph of the r3 is nothing to shout about. Objectively, its a good speaker, subjectively, no better than the Meta anything above lower frequencies is a mild way of describing the R3.

 

[dshreter]

Assuming that the marketing works, which it does, you can just toss out any sighted comparisons. How could someone not expect and listen for something special in a speaker made with "Metamaterial Absorption Technology"?

These are two speakers that should sound nearly identical if paired with subs and played below the levels where the LS50M would noticeably distort. Without subs, the R3 obviously will have a little bit better bass response. That anyone would think they hear +/- 1 or 2 db scattered about when listening to actual music puts them in the same golden ears club that's rejected here. These are both nearly as flat as high end active studio monitors! Tecnogadget mentioned it, but any difference in room interactions would in all likelihood be greater than the differences in the speakers themselves.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

it very clear the R3 only has bass and SPL on its side, besides that, nothing else.

Wrong, you got less IMD for R3, it's has a lot less of IMD in comparison to the LS50m, because the mid woofer it's their waveguide.
But anyway, the R3 can you really loud, you can EQ them to whatever you want, even the 10khz-20khz.

 

[Zvu]

@Zvu Some of us are aware of your great contribution experimenting with the R300 on different forums. But have you had the opportunity to do the same with the R3, or at least long lasting auditioning ? Sometimes I’m confused as if you are talking about the old or new series bookshelf in this regard. Cheers

I have close listening/comparing experience with Q100, Q350, LS50, LS50Meta, R300, R3, R7, Blade II. Out of mentioned i owned jusst R300 and LS50.

Never listened or compared R11, Reference 1 and Reference 3 - which are the speakers i'm also interested in.

And i had some weird comparisons too

I liked Wharfedale Lintons in midfield more when compared to LS50Meta Less accurate sound (it is obvious from first few tacts) but much more engaging.

And i absolutely adore Kef sound but we get quality it in smal chunks of different flavours untill we pay for more expensive series. It is the case with almost all manufacturers but most people seem to think that with Kef, because it measures similar to expensive series, it must sound the same or quite similar.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I have close listening/comparing experience with Q100, Q350, LS50, LS50Meta, R300, R3, R7, Blade II. Out of mentioned i owned jusst R300 and LS50.

Never listened or compared R11, Reference 1 and Reference 3 - which are the speakers i'm also interested in.

And i had some weird comparisons too

I liked Wharfedale Lintons in midfield more when compared to LS50Meta Less accurate sound (it is obvious from first few tacts) but much more engaging.

Uh. Well, I dislike the linton too unaccurate and lacks of control. If I want a lot of mid bass I can just EQ.
I thinked you are a kef r3 owner and thats why you have these bias, because you are very sure that there is a problem but cant even know what it is, do you always tested these speakers im a proper treatment room or with room eq? Or just went to some stores with poor acoustic

I think its much more about bias. Do you liked the linton and is not a high performance speakers, it just has a lot of mid bass.
I listened the reference 3 too, im R7 and r300 owner.

 

[Zvu]

@BrokenEnglishGuy Comparisons are done in two rooms of which one is my own. I decided that modifying is needed before i saw measurements because they didn't sound right - not the other way around. Then i made measurements shown below. Next part of the post isn't reply to you but to others that might be interested. I have no will to prove anything to you ( pics of my room or time line for how long did i listen every one of mentioned loudspeakers) just so that you'd think of something else to write about how and why i should like something i don't.

I'll try to explain with quasi-anechoic measurements why i think their woofers combined with relatively high crossover frequency to midrange (400-500Hz) might be the problem.

Here is impulse response of Kef R series midrange with 10ms time window.



As you can see, driver does its job untill about 3ms and then there is flat line (driver stopped working and silence is recorded) untill the first reflection arrives to the mic at 10ms. We have around 7ms of silence and driver stopped after 3ms - relatively fast.

In comparison, here is 6.5" woofer (used in my DIY three way loudspeaker)



It needed a bit longer to do get to rest and stopped playing around 4-5ms. Little slower than midrange but that's to be expected. Here is Kef R-2011 woofer (differences in construction are minimal compared to R-2018 woofer).



WTF It never came to a complete hault even when first reflection arrived at 10.3ms - i never saw anything like this except in few car subs that also use two part cone (oval and cone part glued). This must be the dirtiest impulse response in a hifi woofer i measured so far.

Disclaimer: I am not a loudspeaker driver design expert nor do i have some skills in FEA-FEM software. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that at Kef they know all this and that's the reason Reference series woofers have hard polymer cage attached to the voice coil and oval part of the cone - it makes for rigid connection with no aditional resonances. R series are cheaper and they had to make a perceivable distinction between chaeper and much more expensive line of products - which is ok. But here too often we see cases when people are idealizing/knowing the sound of a product based on incomplete measurements.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

@BrokenEnglishGuy Comparisons are done in two rooms of which one is my own. I decided that modifying is needed before i saw measurements because they didn't sound right - not the other way around. Then i made measurements shown below. Next part of the post isn't reply to you but to others that might be interested. I have no will to prove anything to you ( pics of my room or time line for how long did i listen every one of mentioned loudspeakers) just so that you'd think of something else to write about how and why i should like something i don't.

I'll try to explain with quasi-anechoic measurements why i think their woofers combined with relatively high crossover freequency to midrange (400-500Hz) might be the problem.

Here is impulse response of Kef R series midrange with 10ms time window.

View attachment 164718

As you can see, driver does its job untill about 3ms and then there is flat line (driver stopped working and silence is recorded) untill the first reflection arrives to the mic at 10ms. We have around 7ms of silence and driver stopped after 3ms - relatively fast.

In comparison, here is 6.5" woofer (used in my DIY three way loudspeaker)

View attachment 164719

It needed a bit longer to do get to rest and stopped playing around 4-5ms. Little slower than midrange but that's to be expected.Here is Kef R-2011 woofer (differences in construction are minimal compared to R-2018 woofer).

View attachment 164720

WTF It never came to a complete hault even when first reflection arrived at 10.3ms - i never saw anything like this except in few car subs that also use two part cone (oval and cone part glued).

Disclaimer: I am not a loudspeaker driver design expert nor do i have some skills in FEA-FEM software. My opinion (if it has any worth) is that at Kef they know all this and that's the reason Reference series woofers have hard polymer cage attached to the voice coil and oval part of the cone - it makes for rigid connection with no aditional ringing. R series are cheaper and they had to make a perceivable distinction between chaeper and much more expensive line of products - which is ok. But here we have some that are idealizing the sound basedon incomplete measurements before putting the darn thing nex to some other loudspeaker and actually listen to it

The construction its very different in the R series 2018.
In fact the new woofer came with noticeable less distortion, and can handle much higher SPL, about the ring stuff, it has a such low level.
What are the incomplete measurements that you said? The one that you posted? Or the klippel measurements from Erin or Amir? Kef r3 review.

 

[Zvu]

And you're off to ignore list

 

[Jokerbre]

The construction its very different in the R series 2018.
In fact the new woofer came with noticeable less distortion, and can handle much higher SPL, about the ring stuff, it has a such low level.
What are the incomplete measurements that you said? The one that you posted? Or the klippel measurements from Erin or Amir? Kef r3 review.

With the measurements made by Amir and Erin, they only scratched the surface. Not to mention the absence of CSD, in the measurements they give. As well as the absence of BR measurements on Erin's measurements. This is just a part of the picture that is very complex. We still don't know much about quantifying what we hear. I’ve had a chance to listen to the Kef r300 and it sounds pretty “in absolute terms” bad. The grading system used here is incomplete and outdated, therefore unusable.

 

[BoredErica]

Assuming that the marketing works, which it does, you can just toss out any sighted comparisons. How could someone not expect and listen for something special in a speaker made with "Metamaterial Absorption Technology"?

These are two speakers that should sound nearly identical if paired with subs and played below the levels where the LS50M would noticeably distort. Without subs, the R3 obviously will have a little bit better bass response. That anyone would think they hear +/- 1 or 2 db scattered about when listening to actual music puts them in the same golden ears club that's rejected here. These are both nearly as flat as high end active studio monitors! Tecnogadget mentioned it, but any difference in room interactions would in all likelihood be greater than the differences in the speakers themselves.

Absolutely this. Unless people are testing them blind, everyone has an opinion and their experience is not worth anything to me. I'm getting Headfi vibes reading half of the posts in here. With how people talk about how big a difference there's supposed to be, it reminds me of Headfi meets when people told me their cable makes things "smoother" and their $10000 amp makes a big difference. Feel like I'm being gaslit when I hear basically no difference between things or they're only barely there.

Yes, R3 can go louder. We get it. I dunno how many times people are going to repeat that Meta distorts more in bass when volume is cranked, or that raising the volume increases chance of IMD, etc. If you need to crank it up to 11 at a distance Metas might not be your thing. I don't think it distorts that much above 100hz and I think IMD/THD are not a problem at all at my listening volumes. I don't care how Metas perform in deep bass because Meta never had any business touching deep bass with a ten foot pole, like basically every other speaker that's not a subwoofer. I'm also not going to be listening to either LS50 or R3 without EQ so I don't really care how they sound without it.

Think about other factors. Metas have wider horizontal and vertical dispersion. They can be listened to at a closer distance, and their smaller size is better for a computer desk. They cost less too. They look different (cabinet shape, driver color vs cabinet, glossy vs matte finish, R3 has walnut option). A big reason why I narrowed down the search to R3 and Meta were because they looked great. Small differences in FR or directivity, maybe I can hear, maybe I cannot. Maybe I'm just placeboing myself. But a nice looking space, that's important to me. Maybe not to you.