Search results

One can only assume the difference in weight is a thinner cabinet or one with less bracing, possibly because resonances are less of an issue with the meta material. Interestingly it seems the entire line-up has higher sensitivity than the prior gen. That's probably going to be biggest audible...

Well even for music R6 + subs is in the same price bracket as R7. I have OG R3s + dual subs and I plug the ports on my R3s. Using R6 as LCRs in a mixed usage HT/music setup would be an ideal setup for many people I would imagine.

Also with the introduction of the R6 that may now be the way to go if you plan to pair with subs.

Are you talking about the 70dB sinad for the front preouts at 2v? That is an out-of-spec rating for this unit (manual states 1v for preout) so of course it is going to look bad! 1v preout is at 85db sinad, and goes up to around 90 at 400m or so. People who are looking for a modest living room...

Well at a minimum the dual woofer arrangement on the R5s should help mitigate floor/ceiling SBIR effects compared to single woofer of R3.

My issue with this avr was never sound quality but the whole hdmi 2.1 port fiasco and the earc dropouts which finally seem to be resolved. In fact this might be the cheapest avr I've seen that has preouts (LR only though). Yes the room correction kinda sucks (well more like it doesn't really...

I'm assuming OP is talking about costs. I think the vast majority of people would prefer towers over standmounts if costs were not a factor. If you do consider costs IMO you could likely build a better system with standpoints + sub(s) than towers for a given price range. Subs will dig deeper and...

Is it just me or does it seem like the normal bookshelf/tower speakers measure better (flatter, better DI) than the in-wall versions? i.e. Kef R series vs. the in-wall version here. Don't in-walls have an advantage due to no diffraction/cabinet resonances?

The only real knock on the Kef R3 is the narrow dispersion which is IMO why some people find it boring for music. However for a mixed use home theater setup I prefer narrow dispersion speakers. If you were just looking for a 2ch music setup IMO paying extra for the BMRs is worth it.

Ah ok then. Personally I don't think "tonality" matching the LCR is as big of a deal as people make it but in this particular case since you are running coaxial speakers it probably is worth it to match in this case. Plus coaxial centers have a lot of advantages over MTM centers.

The landlord is going to let you install an in-wall speaker in your new apartment?!? If I were you I would just get a stand for the center channel. I wouldn't bother with the hassle of in-walls unless I was moving to a new construction house where I could pre-wire everything. Or if not a new...

Polk R200 are fine speakers. Well regarded and measure fairly well. Why are you looking to upgrade specifically? I'm not an expert on crossovers but wasn't there some ASR member who tested more expensive crossover components and found virtually no difference? My understanding is that while...

That's assuming the 2 models are fishing from the same pool. LS50 is clearly targeted toward nearfield/desktop music setups for example. I have the R3 + dual subs in a surround mixed use setup in my living room and if the R series did not exist I would not have purchased the LS50s and likely...

There are plenty of customers who appreciate the R line, myself included where we want traditional passive speaker set that isn't budget nor TOTL. And personally I'm not a fan of the looks of the LS60. I like the LS50 but the shape just looks very odd carried over into a tower format. Also...

How have folks ended up positioning these speakers? I've actual found them sounding best pointed straight ahead but closer together than prescribed by the "equilateral triangle" theory about 6' apart and 9' to the LP which is ~10 degree off axis.

Is the center channel really that important to you? If I didn't want a full-blown surround system I would just go 2.2 and go with a MiniDSP Flex.

I second the Monoprice Monolith stands for the R3 if you don't want to spend an arm and a leg for speaker stands. R3 cabinet is already pretty inert as is but when I had some Triangle Br03's on them (which had very flimsy and resonant cabinets) the Monolith stands filled with play sand did...

Like I said just from first glance of the FR but we won't know until Amir provides the full suite of measurements.

At first glance the improvement from Ref to Ref Meta seems much smaller if at all compared to LS50 to LS50 meta. Makes me think there won't be a huge jump when/if R series Meta gets released.

I believe the Reference line also has tighter tolerances for individual unit variability than the R series. How much tighter I have no idea but yeah there's that.