• 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

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I don’t think Amir really prefers bloated bass? His main speakers are shelved down below 100hz, though they extend quite deep.
He did say he preferred a 5dB low bass shelf in his review of Audyssey.
I tried it and it was not suitable for the sort of music I listen to and sounded quite a bit worse in terms of bass bloat than my system does without any room compensation, thoght the only peaks in my system over 5dB high are very narrow, so that is perhaps why.
 

fmplayer

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
96
Likes
72
HI everybody,
I had the opportunity today to listen to both Revel M16 and Kef R3. Before that, I had read extensively their ASR's reviews of course. I went to a local dealer to listen to the M16, but he also had the R3, so I could compare them.
I started with the M16: tonally correct, but a feeling of somewhat elevated upper bass, a certain lack of bass control, veiled highs, and a little lack of air and transparency. Rather in line with @amirm's measurements.
Next was the R3: less bass, but better controlled and in the end the feeling of "bigger" speakers than they really are. More "fruit" in the midrange, more sparkle in the highs, better clarity and transparency hence more details. I wouldn't say that it is too much treble as could have been deducted from the measurements. Tonally correct also but less weighty and unveiled. I guess careful placement with regard to room gain could linearize the bass. On the contrary, m16 should be placed far from the walls
In the end, I would say that both are equivalent as for sonic quality with regard to their respective price point. Needless to say the R3 has a clear advantage as for perceived built quality and look and feel IMO.
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
HI everybody,
I had the opportunity today to listen to both Revel M16 and Kef R3. Before that, I had read extensively their ASR's reviews of course. I went to a local dealer to listen to the M16, but he also had the R3, so I could compare them.
I started with the M16: tonally correct, but a feeling of somewhat elevated upper bass, a certain lack of bass control, veiled highs, and a little lack of air and transparency. Rather in line with @amirm's measurements.
Next was the R3: less bass, but better controlled and in the end the feeling of "bigger" speakers than they really are. More "fruit" in the midrange, more sparkle in the highs, better clarity and transparency hence more details. I wouldn't say that it is too much treble as could have been deducted from the measurements. Tonally correct also but less weighty and unveiled. I guess careful placement with regard to room gain could linearize the bass. On the contrary, m16 should be placed far from the walls
In the end, I would say that both are equivalent as for sonic quality with regard to their respective price point. Needless to say the R3 has a clear advantage as for perceived built quality and look and feel IMO.
Can you tell us about the setup? Was this all done at the same location?
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
Hmmm i saw some kef with a deep in 1khz and others not, mine doesn't have that deep
here is the measurements of my KEF R300 in nearfield, small room
no subs
 

Attachments

  • SMALL ROOM.png
    SMALL ROOM.png
    167.6 KB · Views: 209

muad

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
415
Likes
471
Hmmm i saw some kef with a deep in 1khz and others not, mine doesn't have that deep
here is the measurements of my KEF R300 in nearfield, small room
no subs
Yeah it's a known issue when the trim ring becomes loose in transport. It goes away by pushing in the trim ring.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
i have a question, and what happen if you EQ the kef r3 and for getting that flat the FR? im using apo EQ with my r300 and it improve a lot the sound, the measurements up side isn't with the correction...

but i mean, a R3 or r300 with flat FR can get really nice sounding like genelec?... for example i listened the references series and the uniq was more refined but with my r300 i get pretty much that smothness with the apo EQ...
Also i readed people in this thread that get very nice result EQ his R3, mine r300 sound very clean but a little weird, the EQ fix the FR wich i found the unique flaw
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
i have a question, and what happen if you EQ the kef r3 and for getting that flat the FR? im using apo EQ with my r300 and it improve a lot the sound, the measurements up side isn't with the correction...

but i mean, a R3 or r300 with flat FR can get really nice sounding like genelec?... for example i listened the references series and the uniq was more refined but with my r300 i get pretty much that smothness with the apo EQ...
Also i readed people in this thread that get very nice result EQ his R3, mine r300 sound very clean but a little weird, the EQ fix the FR wich i found the unique flaw

You can get a good sense of this, at least in terms of directivity, by comparing the normalised directivity plots of the two speakers.

For example, KEF R3:

1607806270906.png


1607806360158.png


Genelec 8341:

1607806298323.png


1607806378692.png


Of course there are also other differences, most notably in terms of nonlinear distortion and bass extension. The latter could also be made more or less the same with EQ; the former of course could not (but the R3 is likely the better performer in this respect, anyway).
 

Chromatischism

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2020
Messages
4,767
Likes
3,706
Hmmm i saw some kef with a deep in 1khz and others not, mine doesn't have that deep
here is the measurements of my KEF R300 in nearfield, small room
no subs
I have no idea what we are looking at. You cut off the frequency axis and you have a 0-160 dB scale with 20 dB increments.

On the All SPL tab, use the controls at the top right to change your vertical axis to 45-105 dB, and use the camera icon to take a screen shot and adjust it to ensure you have 5 dB increments. 45, 50, 55, 60, etc.
 

fmplayer

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
96
Likes
72
Can you tell us about the setup? Was this all done at the same location?
Arcam stuff for CD and amplification played a test CD I made with tracks I know with particular things I want to hear (e. g. difference between Blackmore's distorted guitar and Lords's Hammond with distorsion pedal on Deep Purple's 'Smoke on the water', hearing the two playing unison, etc). Both speakers were in the same room, on the same stands, with little different placement by the dealer, but I assume he knows his stuff. He didn't know I would ask for listening to the Kefs, so I assume he placed the Revels for the best sound, aswell as the R3s
 

Steve Dallas

Major Contributor
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
1,201
Likes
2,784
Location
A Whole Other Country
^ Awesome! Can't wait for this one! A pair of these is on my short list...
 

tifune

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
1,085
Likes
767
Remember guys the R3 "does not quite integrate the additional woofer with the coaxial", don't be fooled by these measurements

Can you elaborate on the implications of this? Lots of comments out there about the R3 sounding boring, etc., But I have to see anyone explain link their opinion to objective metrics. Was thinking about getting some for their excellent vertical dispersion (my speakers are wall mounted 12' high)
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
Can you elaborate on the implications of this? Lots of comments out there about the R3 sounding boring, etc., But I have to see anyone explain link their opinion to objective metrics. Was thinking about getting some for their excellent vertical dispersion (my speakers are wall mounted 12' high)
In my experience, is people who like bright things or expect better performance than a floorstander with 2 x 6.5'' LF drivers..
i have the previous version and they work very nice in near field
 

aarons915

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
685
Likes
1,140
Location
Chicago, IL
Can you elaborate on the implications of this? Lots of comments out there about the R3 sounding boring, etc., But I have to see anyone explain link their opinion to objective metrics. Was thinking about getting some for their excellent vertical dispersion (my speakers are wall mounted 12' high)

Someone was poking fun at another poster, the measurements clearly show they integrate very well. Many neutral speakers sound "boring" at first, some people are used to the sizzle and excitement of Polks or Klipsch at best buy but over time they become harsh and fatiguing.
 

tiojavi

New Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
1
Likes
6
Here's my personal experience with the KEF R3's, I would likely qualify as an untrained listener, so take any impressions I present with credibility appropriate to that of a simple civilian that just likes high fidelity music.

TLDR; Almost endgame, but vocals were too recessed, which put me on the fence to return them. I finally got a UMIK-1 and used REW EQ. Now these are the best I ever heard.

Audio equipment I've own(ed) for reference: Philips x2hr fidelio, Beyerdynamic 1770 and 1990 pros, Neumann ndh20, Hifiman Sundara and Ananda, and SVS Ultrabook shelves. I listened to pretty much all genres, on Amazon Music HD Streaming -- some tracks go up to 24bit/192khz, but minimum was 16bit/44.1khz at least, so source used was better than anyone on this form can likely hear... All my Listening was obviously done with a DAC/AMP combo, but I won't mention which ones I used. I personally feel people that claim they hear differences in sound between transparent DACS are like people that claim they can tell differences between the same wines(https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html). The amp I used is 60W per channel and provided more than enough volume for my listening sessions.

Alright, so I had these for a month now, and they are an upgrade to my previous svs ultra bookshelf speakers. I listen nearfield in a small room with the speakers angled at 45 degrees. From the moment I first heard them, I could tell Imaging and Soundstage were without a doubt in a league above the ultra's. The separation of sounds in space are quite distinguished, and imaging is better than anything else I've owned or heard. I feel they disappear rather well, and much better than the SVS Ultras. The sound stage was also bigger, but I think there are speakers in this price brackets that have been quoted as going wider. Unfortunately I'm not a reliable source on the matter, but compared to SVS they go quite a bit wider, deeper, and taller.

For sound, the bass goes low in a small room, enough to feel it; 40HZ is audible for sure, and they do reach lower. I won't be needing a sub until I move out of my apartment. But for reference, I hear them going lower then SVS ultras, with more tonality and separation in the low end. It should be noted -- although the bass goes lower then the ultras -- the ultras had more punch. When listening to bookshelves, I get the impression of a center image bass, and in the SVS the impact was harder, but not as clean as the R3's. Mids were the reason I wanted to return these speakers. Center Image for singers felt recessed and they were too far back. They couldn't match the SVS's rather forward and elevated vocals I was used to. Except for vocals, I actually felt that the rest of the mid range was clearer in tonality for the R3's, same as the case mentioned in bass comparison. Treble is one of those regions I fined quite tricky to judge as my hearing caps out at ~15Khz. I will say the tweeter on both R3's and Ultra's extend quite well(likely past what I can perceive), and they contain all the details one would expect from HIFI listening. Few times, I felt that the treble was too elevated on the R3's while the SVS definitely had a significant percentile of tracks that I was turning the music down. I felt treble was almost perfect for my needs on the R3's, rarely harsh, but overall balanced, and detailed like my Ananda's. I did mention I own and listen to DT 1990 pros, but I only listen to those with serious reduction in treble as I find the Beyer 8khz peak murderous.

Finally Micro and Macro dynamics are also in a league above the SVS ultras. Listening to the Kef R3 for the first time, I finally understood what the term Micro dynamics meant. The R3 truly present small details with equal visibility to the listener as a lead instrument such as an electric guitar or center image singer. Macro Dynamics were also great with lows and highest retaining information.

I wanted to try the UMIK-1 mic with REW in hopes of fixing the deal breaker vocals. Here are my results, seems there are serious attenuations, between 150-200hz, and another at around 1Khz.
KefR3 in small room nearfield.PNG

After generating the EQ pattern below,
Kef R3 REW generated parametric EQ.PNG

Mids had gained that forward presence I learned to love in my old SVS ultras with solid vocal center image coming back to life. Bass seemed to improve as well and the treble was slightly balanced and then attenuated manually by me as it is my preference. Anyways, I love these speakers and will likely treat these as my end game for the years to come. Hopefully my raw experience is helpful to anyone reading this thread and looking for a perspective(non-learned) on the KEF R3.
 

muad

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
415
Likes
471
Here's my personal experience with the KEF R3's, I would likely qualify as an untrained listener, so take any impressions I present with credibility appropriate to that of a simple civilian that just likes high fidelity music.

TLDR; Almost endgame, but vocals were too recessed, which put me on the fence to return them. I finally got a UMIK-1 and used REW EQ. Now these are the best I ever heard.

Audio equipment I've own(ed) for reference: Philips x2hr fidelio, Beyerdynamic 1770 and 1990 pros, Neumann ndh20, Hifiman Sundara and Ananda, and SVS Ultrabook shelves. I listened to pretty much all genres, on Amazon Music HD Streaming -- some tracks go up to 24bit/192khz, but minimum was 16bit/44.1khz at least, so source used was better than anyone on this form can likely hear... All my Listening was obviously done with a DAC/AMP combo, but I won't mention which ones I used. I personally feel people that claim they hear differences in sound between transparent DACS are like people that claim they can tell differences between the same wines(https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/08/the_most_infamous_study_on_wine_tasting.html). The amp I used is 60W per channel and provided more than enough volume for my listening sessions.

Alright, so I had these for a month now, and they are an upgrade to my previous svs ultra bookshelf speakers. I listen nearfield in a small room with the speakers angled at 45 degrees. From the moment I first heard them, I could tell Imaging and Soundstage were without a doubt in a league above the ultra's. The separation of sounds in space are quite distinguished, and imaging is better than anything else I've owned or heard. I feel they disappear rather well, and much better than the SVS Ultras. The sound stage was also bigger, but I think there are speakers in this price brackets that have been quoted as going wider. Unfortunately I'm not a reliable source on the matter, but compared to SVS they go quite a bit wider, deeper, and taller.

For sound, the bass goes low in a small room, enough to feel it; 40HZ is audible for sure, and they do reach lower. I won't be needing a sub until I move out of my apartment. But for reference, I hear them going lower then SVS ultras, with more tonality and separation in the low end. It should be noted -- although the bass goes lower then the ultras -- the ultras had more punch. When listening to bookshelves, I get the impression of a center image bass, and in the SVS the impact was harder, but not as clean as the R3's. Mids were the reason I wanted to return these speakers. Center Image for singers felt recessed and they were too far back. They couldn't match the SVS's rather forward and elevated vocals I was used to. Except for vocals, I actually felt that the rest of the mid range was clearer in tonality for the R3's, same as the case mentioned in bass comparison. Treble is one of those regions I fined quite tricky to judge as my hearing caps out at ~15Khz. I will say the tweeter on both R3's and Ultra's extend quite well(likely past what I can perceive), and they contain all the details one would expect from HIFI listening. Few times, I felt that the treble was too elevated on the R3's while the SVS definitely had a significant percentile of tracks that I was turning the music down. I felt treble was almost perfect for my needs on the R3's, rarely harsh, but overall balanced, and detailed like my Ananda's. I did mention I own and listen to DT 1990 pros, but I only listen to those with serious reduction in treble as I find the Beyer 8khz peak murderous.

Finally Micro and Macro dynamics are also in a league above the SVS ultras. Listening to the Kef R3 for the first time, I finally understood what the term Micro dynamics meant. The R3 truly present small details with equal visibility to the listener as a lead instrument such as an electric guitar or center image singer. Macro Dynamics were also great with lows and highest retaining information.

I wanted to try the UMIK-1 mic with REW in hopes of fixing the deal breaker vocals. Here are my results, seems there are serious attenuations, between 150-200hz, and another at around 1Khz.
View attachment 102599

After generating the EQ pattern below,
View attachment 102600

Mids had gained that forward presence I learned to love in my old SVS ultras with solid vocal center image coming back to life. Bass seemed to improve as well and the treble was slightly balanced and then attenuated manually by me as it is my preference. Anyways, I love these speakers and will likely treat these as my end game for the years to come. Hopefully my raw experience is helpful to anyone reading this thread and looking for a perspective(non-learned) on the KEF R3.

Did you make sure the flange around the woofer is sitting flush? For me it improved the 1k dip.

Just make sure to not push it in too much. Just till it's flush.
 

fmplayer

Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
96
Likes
72
R3 amplifier matching experience

Ok, I finally ordered mine 2days ago (can't wait ...). Now what beast for the beauties ?
Didn't found much on the web, except What Hifi saying the Rega Elex-R does well (Read the review). Somebody uses them as monitors in a studio, powered by a Bryston amp (
)
From my experience, as I said before, first listening session was with an Arcam SA20, which fitted the R3s acceptably well, but I'm the lucky owner of TEAC UD-501 DAC which means that I'm looking for a purely analog amplifier.
This time, the dealer connected first an Atoll IN100 signature. From an engineer's POV, a good amp (double mono, 100W MOSFETs, serious building and power supply), and I had good hopes for this one, considering the R3s as a "tough" load. Despite beeing tonally correct and with good dynamics, the sound was not "open" and musical enough for my taste. Kind of a good student, but not a gifted one.
I asked the dealer to plug a Moon 250i for comparison (I listened to one 3 years ago and it sounded fine), and started listening to my playlist again. Wow ! Music ! Forget about bass, treble or whatever. Everything in place, rythm and pace, natural focus on what's important, but you can listen to every music part without problem and hear the components of complex sounds (try on Fleetwood Mac - Rumours, the choir on "The chain" ...). That, as a musician, is what I was looking for. Downside: it's more than twice the price of the Atoll (2500 EUR vs 1100 USD) .
Why is it a match ? Maybe the fact that the Moon delivers 50W/8ohms and 100W/4ohms, which makes it cope with the load with grace.
Have to try the bigger Atoll IN200 Signature, and an NCore 400 or Purifi (I have a TEAC HA-501 which serves as a preamp) but a little voice inside my head tells me to quit the search there...
 
Top Bottom