• 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!

How to properly A/B compare speakers? Elac DBR62 vs Infinity R152 vs KEF R3 comparison.

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
Hey folks,

I'll be evaluating KEF R3 to replace Elac DBR62 for near-field desk setup, paired with two Infinity R12 subs in stereo with MiniDSP SHD.
Until it arrives though, I set up the A/B comparison with Infinity R152 which I have already to see how comparisons go.

Here's how the setup looks:
Elac DBR-62 vs Infinity R152.jpg

Listening position is approximately a 3ft equilateral triangle with tweeters at ear level. Switching between speakers with an A/B switch for speaker cables (from Amazon: link), feeding unprocessed digital going through RME ADI-2 Pro, MiniDSP SHD and March Audio P452 to the switch. Subwoofers are off and not part of this comparison.

First subjective impressions of DBR62 vs R152 (as untrained listener learning to listen to properly evaluate/rationalize his expensive purchases):
  • DBR62 sounds warmer, while R152 is very bright at top and also lacking body.
  • DBR62 has much lower bass extension, while R152's bass is lean and starts breaking up at lower volume.
  • DBR62 plays cleaner at higher volume, while R152 becomes harsh in the mids at some point and woofers hit bottom earlier.
  • DBR62 has very good imaging with precise phantom center and the speakers disappear, while with R152 the center and all "images" are fuzzy and imprecise in comparison.
  • DBR-62's soundstage seems deep and narrow while R152 feels shallow and wide. The width difference could be related to the imperfect setup btw as R152 are wider apart by about 2 inches.
My typical listening is with 2xR12 subwoofers crossed at 80Hz and calibrated with Dirac Live. I'm planning next to integrate the subs and calibrate with Dirac in two separate MiniDSP profiles and then switch speakers and profiles at the same time when comparing. Essentially I will be comparing how my preferred Dirac target curve and subs sound on different speakers :)

My only issue with the setup is that the AB AB configuration creates two rotated soundstages which are off-center in the room and combined with the additional speaker on both sides sounds "odd" to me. I definitely prefer the sound of DBR62 vs R152, but when I switch to the two closest to the monitor - R152 and DBR62 I almost prefer it to both DBR62 because it sounds more "right". I'm used to that layout and that's probably why, but I feel this makes my experiment less "valid".
Various designs for spinning platforms and sliding rails to enable comparison of speakers at the same position go through my head, but I feel this crosses the line of sanity. Your ideas and encouragement are needed to normalize it for me ;)

I'd appreciate any ideas and tips on how to best compare two pairs of speakers for desk setup!
 
Last edited:

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,209
Likes
2,674
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
I have been wondering just that, as I will soon AB 2 sets.
I THINK the test is cleaner if you put one on top of the other, with the top one turned upside down. this way when you switch you just have to ajust earheight and should have the same soundstage/stereo-triangle and also wont have them interfearing each others in the horizontal dispersion
 
Last edited:
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
I have been wondering just that, as I will soon AB 2 sets.
I THINK the teast is cleaner if you put one on top of the other, with the top one turned upside down. this way when you switch you just have to ajust earheight and should have the same soundstage/stereo-triangle and also wont have them interfearing each others in the horizontal dispersion
Makes sense, but then the top speaker I will listen in reverse. I will have to rotate top/bottom several times while testing, which is yet another mechanical design just being imagined - rotating wheel :)
 

dasdoing

Major Contributor
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
4,209
Likes
2,674
Location
Salvador-Bahia-Brasil
but then the top speaker I will listen in reverse

It doesn't matter if the woofer is above or below the tweeter. the room interaction will change a little, but it should be a minor change. it's more important to have the tweeters more or less at the same height. but than again you have a table there that will interact difrently with the woofer at diferent heights. if you try this out you might wanna put the speakers at the edge of the table to exclude the table interference.
 
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
It doesn't matter if the woofer is above or below the tweeter. the room interaction will change a little, but it should be a minor change. it's more important to have the tweeters more or less at the same height. but than again you have a table there that will interact difrently with the woofer at diferent heights. if you try this out you might wanna put the speakers at the edge of the table to exclude the table interference.
My intent is to compare as close to my usual listening position as possible, the monitor and desk interference is essential in that and prefer speaker that handles it well.

It’s clear though - two reasonable but imperfect orientations with their own pros and cons plus three axes around which a potential mechanical device for ideal comparison could be rotating plus one axis for sliding.
 
Last edited:

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
Hi i have questions

Do you block the ports?

Do you roll off the speakers at 80hz or just set the speakers in that place and then in room EQ+ add the sub?

Ty
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,916
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
Yah, level matching is extremely important.
I use a, b or z weighted SPL meter with pink noise played from 500-2500hrz and averaged.
Much better than matching one frequency or the whole spectrum IMHO.
Also since you are using subs I'd compare them both with the subbass removed. I mean who cares if one set has better bass in this use case?
I would also apply and PEQ and room correction since you would be (hopefully) using such things it makes no sense to test without.

You can also test just one speaker if that helps simplify. Put one on each side so they don't affect each other. Or one on top of the other upside down as suggested.

You can also get an assistant to switch the speaker back and forth for you so you'd be somewhat blind.

How loud before they "bottom"? I mean in nearfield if they hit max SPL I'd be wearing ear protection. My r152's highpassed with subs can fill a very large space well, I can not imagine them maxed out in NF.

Interesting that you find them tubby as I deff found the r152's bass lean (it is small) but quite tight and melded with a sub very tight and easy to fill out.
I found the bass of the ELAC to be overly warm and not quite my jam.
Of course that is why one must listen for them selves in their own space.

Neither speaker is designed for near field though and I have never used either speaker that way. Why not try some speakers designed for that? Getting the units optimized for close listening can involve some different design choices vs far field.
Also much more bass at lower volumes is required for humans to perceive it equally with the rest of the band so test your system at various SPL levels.
 
Last edited:
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
What are you doing for level matching, or did I just miss it?
Quickly measured DBR62 and R152 to have SPL within about 1dB of each other for the first test, will precisely measure with UMIK-2 and adjust for subsequent tests with gain adjustment in the SHD profile.

Also since you are using subs I'd compare them both with the subbass removed. I mean who cares if one set has better bass in this use case?
I would also apply and PEQ and room correction since you would be (hopefully) using such things it makes no sense to test without.
Actually tried comparing them crossed over at 80Hz and it did help - it removed some of the sub-bass advantage of DBR62 to be able to focus on the other differences better as they matter more for my use case with subs. The final most complete test will be all calibrated with subs as I listen to it, but will compare and test at each "level" - unprocessed, crossed at 80Hz, integrated with subs and then Dirac calibrated.

You can also test just one speaker if that helps simplify. Put one on each side so they don't affect each other. Or one on top of the other upside down as suggested.
I'll explore the one speaker option too - first try showed it does help focus on tonality differences but confuses me on soundstage/imaging.

How loud before they "bottom"? I mean in nearfield if they hit max SPL I'd be wearing ear protection. My r152's highpassed with subs can fill a very large space well, I can not imagine them maxed out in NF.
Bottom out and SPL handling test is important and will do - want to understand what are my SPL "needs" are and how far each takes me.

Neither speaker is designed for near field though and I have never used either speaker that way. Why not try some speakers designed for that? Getting the units optimized for close listening can involve some different design choices vs far field.
Also much more bass at lower volumes is required for humans to perceive it equally with the rest of the band so test your system at various SPL levels.
I recently "got the memo" that 2-way are sub-optimal for near-field and this is why trying out R3 for its coaxial driver.
I know the "ideal" near-field is LS50 Meta for compact SPL-limited option or most Genelecs for pick-your-size SOTA near-field monitor, but I'm concerned about LS50 Meta's SPL limitations and already have the amp so staying on the passive speaker route.

Do you block the ports?
Haven't blocked any ports yet, but will probably plug R3's ports in the final setup as I don't need the additional sub-bass in my setup with subs and the rear wall is close.
 

eddantes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
707
Likes
1,385
What I do to A:B (hopefully it's not to far off the mark)
  • Level match with pink noise.
  • No subs.
  • Listen in mono to only one speaker.
  • Speakers are positioned close to eachother, but taking care to avoid introducing difraction, so not abutting eachother.
  • Rapid switching - ie: less than a second or two to switch - anything more and my audio memory becomes suspect.
I'd love to do it blind... but alas, no such equipment.
 
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
Interesting that you find them tubby as I deff found the r152's bass lean (it is small) but quite tight and melded with a sub very tight and easy to fill out.
I found the bass of the ELAC to be overly warm and not quite my jam.
Continuing to compare, I found my impression of tubby bass had been at high SPL where the woofer starts breaking up. Confirmed it with a single speaker comparison which focused my attention better. Indeed R152's bass is tight and respectable for their size and overall sounds like a good speaker that just needs a little EQ to lower treble to customize to perfection. I can see how adding a sub to these can make a very reasonable system. I'm using 3 pairs of the larger R162 for HT surrounds and happy with them.
 
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
R3 arrived last week and I've started comparing them - here's the setup:
DBR62 vs R3 in AB AB.png

Level matching was done full-band random pink noise A-weighted measured with UMIK-2. Found it imprecise and adjusted by ear a bit. The differences in tonality specially around the highs complicates it a bit. Floyd Toole have said they had best correlation with B-weighted measurements when comparing at Harman, but seems REW does not support that.

Comparison goes in stages as planned - here are my impressions so far:

Comparing unprocessed signal in mono
Indeed mono allows best focus on differences between speakers and found them most different when compared like that:
  • Tonality - highs are more emphasized on R3, definitely a bit elevated, but with a clean and pleasant character, nothing like your average bright speaker (e.g. R152). The sub-bass on R3 is much better - you can "feel" the subwoofer you don't have down there and wish you had one :) DBR62 seems to have a bit more mid-bass that gives it a warmer sound. I'm not attuned well to comparing midrange, but definitely vocals on R3 sound more pleasant to me.
  • Dispersion and soundstage - DBR62 feels like a smaller source of sound, while R3 feels taller and more enveloping. Size of speakers could play a role in this.
  • Overall my preference is clearly for R3 in this comparison, although DBR62 is still a very respectable speaker.
Comparing unprocessed signal in stereo
Tonality perception does not change from mono, but now it allows better focus on soundstage and imaging.
I find the DBR62 soundstage a bit wider, but significantly shorter/flatter vertically. DBR62 has soundstage depth, but it feels "horseshoe" shaped - left and right feels close while center is always further ahead. R3 has tall soundstage that spans mostly between the speakers, depth perception is great too, but it does not always bring the center further away like DBR62, keeping the soundstage more evenly shaped. These differences overall manifest as R3 providing a better sense of space of where the recording is made and you can "feel" the room better.
When listening to Britten: Festival Te Deum by Westminster Chior both speakers project a "holographic" soundstage, but the space feels larger and more real with R3, even though being a bit narrower than DBR62. I really like the height R3 is projecting.

Comparing Dirac calibrated
DBR62:
Dirac DBR62.png
R3:
Dirac R3.png
Target is the same for both based on my established preferences - +2dB bass shelf, -1dB at 1kHz, -3dB at 20kHz, customized to limit bass boost on both to not overburdening the driver. When the bass target was flat without the dips, bass didn't sound right on both.

When tuned as seen on the graphs, both speakers transformed incredibly - now both have "body-feel" bass, the annoying and very audible 100-500Hz peak is gone and treble is tamed to perfection.

Now speakers sound more similar than different :) The remaining differences are:
  • Tonality - Dirac erased most of the differences in that, but the vocals and highs still sound more pleasant to me on R3. DBR62 feels nice and familiar as I've been using them for more than a year, but R3 brings a more "clarity" and "smoothness" compared to DBR62.
  • Soundstage - still the same experience as described above - wide, flat vertically, horsehoe shaped for DBR62 vs narrower, taller with more realistic depth perception with R3.
  • R3's sub-bass is still much better than DBR62. I would dare suggest you can go without a sub for near-field listening when Dirac calibrated with boosted bass. Of course this will reduce dynamic range as you would expect, but there's plenty left for near-field.
Overall I'd be happy with either speaker, but definitely prefer R3 over DBR62.

What's next
At this point I know I'm keeping R3 for sure, but the potential for fun with both pairs on my desk is not exhausted yet :)
Still a bit unhappy about comparing angled soundstage in the AB AB configuration, so ordered a couple of Lazy Susans to be able to rotate both speakers and compare them in the same position next to the monitor. Haven't seen anyone do that and thought might be interesting to try out. I also have 2x R12 subs that I have to integrate separately with each pair and then compare them with subs. Will do that once I have the Lazy Susan switching setup in place.

After comparisons are done, I'm thinking of trying out something odd - use R3 as primary, but add the pair of DBR62 on the outside. Will use separate amps with the two outputs of SHD and will Dirac calibrate together. I know this will cause interference between them affecting tonality and such, but could this get me a both tall and wide soundstage? I need to try it out for myself and for science :)

As always tips and suggestions would be appreciated! I can also try to parse out specific differences if anyone is interested - feel free to ask. I'll keep the comparison setup for the next couple of weeks or so at least.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
R3 arrived last week and I've started comparing them - here's the setup:
View attachment 180283

Level matching was done full-band random pink noise A-weighted measured with UMIK-2. Found it imprecise and adjusted by ear a bit. The differences in tonality specially around the highs complicates it a bit. Floyd Toole have said they had best correlation with B-weighted measurements when comparing at Harman, but seems REW does not support that.

Comparison goes in stages as planned - here are my impressions so far:

Comparing unprocessed signal in mono
Indeed mono allows best focus on differences between speakers and found them most different when compared like that:
  • Tonality - highs are more emphasized on R3, definitely a bit elevated, but with a clean and pleasant character, nothing like your average bright speaker (e.g. R152). The sub-bass on R3 is much better - you can "feel" the subwoofer you don't have down there and wish you had one :) DBR62 seems to have a bit more mid-bass that gives it a warmer sound. I'm not attuned well to comparing midrange, but definitely vocals on R3 sound more pleasant to me.
  • Dispersion and soundstage - DBR62 feels like a smaller source of sound, while R3 feels taller and more enveloping. Size of speakers could play a role in this.
  • Overall my preference is clearly for R3 in this comparison, although DBR62 is still a very respectable speaker.
Comparing unprocessed signal in stereo
Tonality perception does not change from mono, but now it allows better focus on soundstage and imaging.
I find the DBR62 soundstage a bit wider, but significantly shorter/flatter vertically. DBR62 has soundstage depth, but it feels "horseshoe" shaped - left and right feels close while center is always further ahead. R3 has tall soundstage that spans mostly between the speakers, depth perception is great too, but it does not always bring the center further away like DBR62, keeping the soundstage more evenly shaped. These differences overall manifest as R3 providing a better sense of space of where the recording is made and you can "feel" the room better.
When listening to Britten: Festival Te Deum by Westminster Chior both speakers project a "holographic" soundstage, but the space feels larger and more real with R3, even though being a bit narrower than DBR62. I really like the height R3 is projecting.

Comparing Dirac calibrated
DBR62:
View attachment 180307
R3:
View attachment 180306
Target is the same for both based on my established preferences - +2dB bass shelf, -1dB at 1kHz, -3dB at 20kHz, customized to limit bass boost on both to not overburdening the driver. When the bass target was flat without the dips, bass didn't sound right on both.

When tuned as seen on the graphs, both speakers transformed incredibly - now both have "body-feel" bass, the annoying and very audible 100-500Hz peak is gone and treble is tamed to perfection.

Now speakers sound more similar than different :) The remaining differences are:
  • Tonality - Dirac erased most of the differences in that, but the vocals and highs still sound more pleasant to me on R3. DBR62 feels nice and familiar as I've been using them for more than a year, but R3 brings a more "clarity" and "smoothness" compared to DBR62.
  • Soundstage - still the same experience as described above - wide, flat vertically, horsehoe shaped for DBR62 vs narrower, taller with more realistic depth perception with R3.
  • R3's sub-bass is still much better than DBR62. I would dare suggest you can go without a sub for near-field listening when Dirac calibrated with boosted bass. Of course this will reduce dynamic range as you would expect, but there's plenty left for near-field.
Overall I'd be happy with either speaker, but definitely prefer R3 over DBR62.

What's next
At this point I know I'm keeping R3 for sure, but the potential for fun with both pairs on my desk is not exhausted yet :)
Still a bit unhappy about comparing angled soundstage in the AB AB configuration, so ordered a couple of Lazy Susans to be able to rotate both speakers and compare them in the same position next to the monitor. Haven't seen anyone do that and thought might be interesting to try out. I also have 2x R12 subs that I have to integrate separately with each pair and then compare them with subs. Will do that once I have the Lazy Susan switching setup in place.

After comparisons are done, I'm thinking of trying out something odd - use R3 as primary, but add the pair of DBR62 on the outside. Will use separate amps with the two outputs of SHD and will Dirac calibrate together. I know this will cause interference between them affecting tonality and such, but could this get me a both tall and wide soundstage? I need to try it out for myself and for science :)

As always tips and suggestions would be appreciated! I can also try to parse out specific differences if anyone is interested - feel free to ask. I'll keep the comparison setup for the next couple of weeks or so at least.
Room correction it's the current game changer, it's a very good tool for everyone :D
 
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
@f1shb0n3 aren't R3 too big for this listening distance? Have You tried them listening in further distance?
My understanding is a coaxial drivers more appropriate for near field compared to 2-way designs because the sound comes from a point source. R3's coaxial plays above 400Hz, so not ideal. LS50 Meta could be a bit better because it only has a coaxial driver, but with them I will have to sacrifice dynamic range even with subs. Tempting to buy a pair to compare with R3, but doubt my abilities to parse any differences between well designed calibrated speakers. R3 wins with no contest for being big, tall, shiny and loud :)

Tried different distances by stepping back from the desk - indeed the sweet spot of distance is a step back from the desk. The difference is not huge with my normal listening position with hands on the keyboard though and they are also wider apart now because of the AB AB setup. I'll do toe-in and distance test and comparison with DBR62 once I set up the rotating platform for switching between them.
 

Jim Shaw

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
616
Likes
1,159
Location
North central USA
...
Comparing unprocessed signal in mono
Indeed mono allows best focus on differences between speakers and found them most different when compared like that:
  • Tonality - highs are more emphasized on R3, definitely a bit elevated, but with a clean and pleasant character, nothing like your average bright speaker (e.g. R152). The sub-bass on R3 is much better - you can "feel" the subwoofer you don't have down there and wish you had one :) DBR62 seems to have a bit more mid-bass that gives it a warmer sound. I'm not attuned well to comparing midrange, but definitely vocals on R3 sound more pleasant to me.
  • Dispersion and soundstage - DBR62 feels like a smaller source of sound, while R3 feels taller and more enveloping. Size of speakers could play a role in this.
  • Overall my preference is clearly for R3 in this comparison, although DBR62 is still a very respectable speaker.
Comparing unprocessed signal in stereo
Tonality perception does not change from mono, but now it allows better focus on soundstage and imaging.
I find the DBR62 soundstage a bit wider, but significantly shorter/flatter vertically. DBR62 has soundstage depth, but it feels "horseshoe" shaped - left and right feels close while center is always further ahead. R3 has tall soundstage that spans mostly between the speakers, depth perception is great too, but it does not always bring the center further away like DBR62, keeping the soundstage more evenly shaped. These differences overall manifest as R3 providing a better sense of space of where the recording is made and you can "feel" the room better.
When listening to Britten: Festival Te Deum by Westminster Chior both speakers project a "holographic" soundstage, but the space feels larger and more real with R3, even though being a bit narrower than DBR62. I really like the height R3 is projecting...
Thanks for this. It speaks, subjectively, to the differences between (in this case) a speaker set that sells for about 3X as another with good comments. I also have the DBR62s, but if I were flush with money, I'd seek out a pair of the R3s. (My primary concern is musicality when playing back symphonic, jazz, and solo instrumental music.) However, my application is a fairly large room and about 90 dB average with 105 dB peaks at 4 meters. The DBRs are pushing their SPL limits in that application.

I too occasionally listen to just one speaker, and it does make it easier to compare different models. Others may disagree, but I am right. ;)
 

eddantes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
707
Likes
1,385
1642690797641.png


Some concerns about your description and measurement... On the graphs above one can see a very broad difference in bass output that doesn't show up in other measurements (well... there is port shelving on the R3... but this seems like "a lot") and in your case the DBR shows little (if any) mid range dip. Just a bit incongruent with other measurements. I know this is "in your room" but still...

1642691171672.png


The other thing is "Level matching was done full-band random pink noise A-weighted measured with UMIK-2. Found it imprecise and adjusted by ear a bit." I dunno... the reason we use a mic is to avoid perceptual bias... Not saying you're wrong, just a factoid that raises a flag... thats all.

Regardless, I think you probably have gathered good info and feel good in the knowledge that your "better" speaker is indeed better. And there's no question that the preference score for the R3 is 6.5 and the DBR is 5.7, so why wouldn't you.
 
OP
F

f1shb0n3

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
323
Likes
498
Location
Seattle Area
View attachment 180431

Some concerns about your description and measurement... On the graphs above one can see a very broad difference in bass output that doesn't show up in other measurements (well... there is port shelving on the R3... but this seems like "a lot") and in your case the DBR shows little (if any) mid range dip. Just a bit incongruent with other measurements. I know this is "in your room" but still...

View attachment 180439

The other thing is "Level matching was done full-band random pink noise A-weighted measured with UMIK-2. Found it imprecise and adjusted by ear a bit." I dunno... the reason we use a mic is to avoid perceptual bias... Not saying you're wrong, just a factoid that raises a flag... thats all.

Regardless, I think you probably have gathered good info and feel good in the knowledge that your "better" speaker is indeed better. And there's no question that the preference score for the R3 is 6.5 and the DBR is 5.7, so why wouldn't you.
Bias is real - I like the big and shiny R3 and want it to be better, no question about it. I’ve put money on that so to say :p
Unbiased comparisons are hard, expensive and beyond my capabilities.

Thanks for highlighting the port shelving and midrange inconsistencies, will investigate further.
 
Last edited:

eddantes

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 15, 2020
Messages
707
Likes
1,385
Bias is real - I like the big and shiny R3 and want it to be better, no question about it. I’ve put money on that so to say :p
Unbiased comparisons are hard, expensive and beyond my capabilities.

Thanks for highlighting the port shelving and midrange inconsistencies, will investigate further.
Enjoy your "speaker honeymoon" ! Don't forget to explore new music, while it all sounds "oh so good!" :) Cheers!
 

Ataraxia

Active Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2019
Messages
136
Likes
76
My understanding is a coaxial drivers more appropriate for near field compared to 2-way designs because the sound comes from a point source. R3's coaxial plays above 400Hz, so not ideal. LS50 Meta could be a bit better because it only has a coaxial driver, but with them I will have to sacrifice dynamic range even with subs. Tempting to buy a pair to compare with R3, but doubt my abilities to parse any differences between well designed calibrated speakers. R3 wins with no contest for being big, tall, shiny and loud :)

Tried different distances by stepping back from the desk - indeed the sweet spot of distance is a step back from the desk. The difference is not huge with my normal listening position with hands on the keyboard though and they are also wider apart now because of the AB AB setup. I'll do toe-in and distance test and comparison with DBR62 once I set up the rotating platform for switching between them.

Fun comparison. I really want Dirac. I've had R3's for a few years and Metas a few months. I highly recommend getting the Metas and adding those to your desktop comparisons. The Metas stay on my desk roughly 3'10" equilateral, R3's in current living room roughly 7.7' equilateral and have had those up to 9' to 12' equilateral in larger living rooms. R3's in midfield/farfield properly placed have incredible soundstage/imaging.
 

Attachments

  • LS50MetaIso.JPG
    LS50MetaIso.JPG
    215.4 KB · Views: 285
  • IMG_1841.JPEG
    IMG_1841.JPEG
    158.2 KB · Views: 299
Top Bottom