Interesting thread. I have the R3 Meta and when I chose them I had the doubt with the LS50 Meta. Since I could not compare them in a valid way (same room, same FR) I decided to opt for the R3M for the simple fact that they managed more power (my room is about 100 cubic meters with about 3.5 meters between LP and speakers).
I read several comments where it is assumed that the LS50M take advantage in imaging for the shape of the cabinet, which implies fewer diffraction problems.
It is a theoretically valid assumption in my opinion, since the most affected frequencies by diffraction are the mids.
In the KEF LS50M white paper they actually talk about this, however no measurement is shown.
Could anyone suggest how to measure this effect? (aside from the need for an anechoic chamber)
Being a kind of mini echo I suppose the impulse response could show it, placing the microphone close enough to the driver.
However, to see it in the form of FFT I fear that it is difficult to correctly size the window to include the effect or not and make a comparison.
Apart from that, I honestly believe that the differences between R3 and LS50 are many and it is not possible to attribute auditory differences to a single factor rather than another. Also because it would be difficult to make a truly valid auditory comparison test (i.e. excluding all the variables of positioning, level, memory, bias, etc.).
In any case, I am convinced that once placed in the exact same position and equalized in FR and SPL they sound almost indistinguishable (bass apart).
Below is the estimated response in the room for both, with equalization.
That difference around 1-2kHz and 0.5-0.6kHz could be better equalized I think. The difference in dispersion will remain obviously and I would bet more on that for a possible hearing difference than only on the diffraction of the cabinet.
Unless the difference in dispersion is mostly an effect of the cabinet itself and therefore of the diffraction.
What do you think?
