KEF/Coaxial 2 Ways vs 3 way point source qualities

[Heinrich]

But in that case the opposite happened?

@thewas , there is an extended audition announced. It may be beneficial to follow a more analytical approach, with the parameter under investigation being isolated (see LS50 vs/ R3, unsuccessful). Wether or not the audition is sighted - well, if there are such obvious differences between the speakers, you may attribute the findings to the wrong parameter.

Btw: now I see, the case is re-opened again, and again some theories are exchanged, redefining coax and so forth in all due detail.

 

[Arindal]

I don't agree there as its more continuous than the R3 in that region and better than most conventional similar sized ones.

There is no disagreement on the term ´continuous´ or ´controlled´, if you imply continuously and relatively steep increase in directivity index.

We seemingly have different ideas of what is ideal and what leads to which outcome in terms of sound quality. My experience with setting up speakers in a room is telling me that an imbalance in off-axis response averaged over octave-broad bands, is almost certainly leading to flaws I don't want to encounter. That is particularly the case if the 0.8-2K band is much louder, averaged in the room compared to the 2.5K-5K band. That's the no.1 thing I look for in measurements and try to avoid for home listening.

I see a constant directivity as an ideal, as promoted by Earl Geddes and Siegfried Linkwitz, among others, with focus on the localizable frequency bands. If the radiation is in general too broad, or getting broader below 800Hz or narrowing down above 8K, or showing slight signs of imperfect continouity but staying within a certain tolerance band without showing a clear tendency in either direction... well, these are all minor issues which can be tackled with EQ or room treatment or adjusting the listening distance in most of cases.

The dashed line D.I. of Reference 3 Meta which you have shown, looks like a significant improvement to me over any bookshelf design with similar drivers. Had several of the latter and tried to install them in different rooms but ended up in being disappointed.

 

[thewas]

We seemingly have different ideas of what is ideal and what leads to which outcome in terms of sound quality. My experience with setting up speakers in a room is telling me that an imbalance in off-axis response averaged over octave-broad bands, is almost certainly leading to flaws I don't want to encounter. That is particularly the case if the 0.8-2K band is much louder, averaged in the room compared to the 2.5K-5K band. That's the no.1 thing I look for in measurements and try to avoid for home listening.

Yes, I tend to prefer a continuously rising one to one that has sudden slope changes in it as such colour the off-axis sound for me worse.

 

[CJH]

The curved baffle and not separated woofer of the LS50 offers an advantage in radiation continuity which the flat surfaced R series tries to compensate with the shadow flare but still doesn't fully reach, this can be seen by comparing the early and full directivity indexes of the LS50 Meta (continuous lines): vs R3 Meta (dashed lines):

A flat baffle and box (sides and top) due cause problems for the best radiation. Genelec has worked on this with some good results and few others have followed . I'm surprised Ascend hasn't worked on this area to improve their designs. They do have a Klippel for testing, so it seems doable. At least they could truncate the baffle around the their tweeter similar to Heismann and others for improved results.
CJH

 

[Arindal]

A flat baffle and box (sides and top) due cause problems for the best radiation

Certainly true, but KEF has circumvented most of these problems, particularly the ones concerning the treble bands, by the way they implement the tweeter. For longer wavelengths in the lower midrange bands, the baffle shape of the Reference 3 Meta is too slim horizontally, and radiation dominated by the two woofers vertically, so not really an issue here.

Genelec has worked on this with some good results and few others have followed

I am aware of this, but designing a broad, gently curved midrange waveguide for a coaxial driver comes at a cost: It is impossible to keep the directivity constant with increasing frequency, as the radiation pattern will either this or that way narrow down due to the more spherical shape of the whole thing the more you come closer to the tweeter.

To minimize this effect, you have to make the waveguide´s curvation more gentle and the waveguide smaller in one dimension, which leads to a baffle step higher in frequency, increasing the risk of dominant midrange reverb. I have worked with the 8341A for a long time, it is the best compromise according to my ears, but requires a well-treated room below 800Hz and some DSP.

I tend to prefer a continuously rising one to one that has sudden slope changes in it as such colour the off-axis sound for me worse.

I was not talking about slope changes but constant directivity as an ideal. A certain variation is to be accepted if bands averaged over an octave would not deviate several decibels from the neighboring bands.

Interestingly, I perceive continuously rising directivity index as colorating the reverb the most (as much as a step up in directivity index in the same band), particularly if the increase is more than +2 or +3dB from one octave to the neighboring one, happening in the 1.5K...3K region. If the 0.8-2K band is dominating over the 2.5K-5K, it is not only colorating the reverb, but tending to disturb the imaging in terms of reverb being perceived from the front enveloping the phantom sources it is originating from.

There is a theory behind this, based on Blauert´s HRTF localization theory and the diffuse vs. direct loudness model by Zwicker/Fastl. If the 0.8-2K band is dominant over 2.5-5K in the reverb, we perceive it as coming from behind, enveloping the listener, detached from the direct sources and the reverb pattern contained in the recording. A tonally balanced reverb relative to the direct sound or slightly dominating 2.5-5K band is contributing to a coherent, frontal perception of reverb behind the phantom sources, blending with the reverb in the recording. Which would actually make a change in directivity slope sounding more natural, if it happens in the right bands, of course. I prefer the constant directivity example.

Do you have an explanation why you prefer rising directivity? Do you prefer it compared to constant directivity?

 

[Heinrich]

... as such colour the off-axis sound for me worse.

Not picking on you, I've seen it so often!

The off axis sound is off axis, right? Where does it travel along in your home, and once coming after you, what does it do to you. actually? I hear you, the collapsing stereo imaging, that nasty 'smear', the undue colorations - but what about frequency dependend, diffusive reflectivity? You (hopefully) won't live and listen between bare walls in a tiled bathroom.

Before getting nitpicky about the speaker, and an ever so slight curvature of its baffle, what is the RT30 of the room in question, in the finest frequency resolution, down to half a dB? I've never seen such an analysis from anyone, but speakers are scrutinized that far - well, speaker directivity and room acoustics are interchangeable in that respect.

(And once again the original topic is left aside, in favor of discussing ... off axis sounds. Never mind.)

 

[aarons915]

Woofers flanking the coaxial driver in some sort of d´Apollito arrangement, reproducing the bands below the UniQ´s frequency range, should in theory not be leading to vertical localization errors, as the phantom sum of the woofers´ localization is in fact the central axis where the coaxial resides. Other companies call this virtual coax. If your theory would be applicable, one should expect the speaker concepts with just three drivers, like the 3-way bookshelf designs, to show this flaw the most, not the floor standers.

I am anyways a bit reserved regarding clearly detectable localization error, as the frequency range in which the woofers are dominating, is pretty low, reducing the risk of vertical localization contradicting with the coaxial´s.

What might contribute to imaging effects is the differences in directivity. Rather compact 2-way coaxials tend to have a pretty broad radiation pattern below 500Hz, so the narrowing down in directivity towards higher frequencies becomes more audible, but is on the other hand pretty uniformly distributed over different frequencies and angles. With a 3-way design and fairly high x-over freq between woofer and midrange (and everything like 300Hz or more is high), you can expect to have significant effects of interference, lobing or cancellation under vertical angles in the transitional band.

There are indications that our brain can perceive this as the resulting room reflections, particularly ceiling and floor reflections, as they also reflect these tonal issues.



I would take that as a hint that the vertical localization issue might be close to negligible.

If the ceiling/floor reflections make a difference or not, is also a matter of the room and listening distance.

That was my theory as to why I wanted to try the Q6 and I don't want to call it an "error", it's a subtle effect and the speakers still sound great but when you A/B instantly between them and an LS50 it's pretty obvious that the LS50 is the more perfect point source. I would think the large floor standers would be the worst as they have some of the bass drivers further away from the UniQ, the Blades are a great example of keeping the bass drivers centered around the UniQ to create an "apparent point source", if it didn't matter I wouldn't think they would go through all of that trouble. To me it's just about compromises, the LS50 may be a better point source but it obviously can't play as loud as the 3 ways, for now my solution is to use the LS50 and high pass them in the 120-150Hz range.

Do you have an explanation why you prefer rising directivity? Do you prefer it compared to constant directivity?

One interesting comment in the Q series whitepaper makes me wonder if KEF has done some listening tests that show constant directivity is not preferred to a gently increasing directivity. They are putting a slight shelf in the on-axis response so that the early reflections maintain a downward slope, Erin has mentioned this in a few of his reviews that he thought a speaker that he thought would be bright wasn't and attributed it to the slight shelf in on axis response, I believe the Reference One Meta were one of them.

 

[Arindal]

The off axis sound is off axis, right? Where does it travel along in your home, and once coming after you, what does it do to you.

To a certain degree, we can perceive tonality over a limited angle window. Particularly in a nearfield setup. Our head and shoulders contribute to diffraction, and we subtly and unconsciously move our head to improve localization, we can perceive more than tonally in just one spot like a microphone.

Of course, the off-axis sound is mostly reaching our ears via reflections. Early ones (ceiling, floor, side walls), discrete ones, delayed reflections, increasingly diffuse reverb. Our brain is actually pretty well trained in interpreting the pattern both in terms of time, angle and tonality. For the latter, the difference in tonality between direct sound and reflection is key. Of course we have to take into account that the direct sound is also containing reverb information (when listening to an acoustic recording from a concert hall) and that the indirect soundfield in the listening room might be dominating.

Speaker directivity is not only more important than frequency-dependent absorption, our brain can also compare it to the direct sound and different parts of the indirect soundfield which might carry a different tonality pattern (due to uneven directivity, lobing).

the Blades are a great example of keeping the bass drivers centered around the UniQ to create an "apparent point source", if it didn't matter I wouldn't think they would go through all of that trouble.

AFAIK Concept blade geometry predated the current generation of coaxial drivers, so it might have been a requirement for higher x-over freq.

it's a subtle effect and the speakers still sound great but when you A/B instantly between them and an LS50 it's pretty obvious that the LS50 is the more perfect point source.

As mentioned, it is unlikely that the difference in vertical localization solely originating from the different position of the bass driver, is really audible. What you are describing, is worth checking in a controlled test, and might hint to discrete reflections in the room creating the localization instability effect. That is a pretty common thing.

In this case it might be a good idea to exclude other factors potentially compromising the localization stability, so I recommend to decrease the listening distance of both speakers in a way the direct sound would also be dominant over the reflections. As KEFs are coaxial designs, you can go for a true nearfield setup until you feel this ´perfectly stable phantom center´ imaging. This also reduces the influence of reverb tonality which is another explanation why the floorstanders give a different spatial impression.

This ensures localization issues rooted in reflections are attenuated to a sufficient degree. I bet, the imaging will be as good as with the 2-way in this case.

They are putting a slight shelf in the on-axis response so that the early reflections maintain a downward slope,

That is not uncommon with speaker concepts showing an actual decrease in directivity index in the lowest band the tweeter is playing alone. That is particularly the case with speakers having a comparably small tweeter in a slim baffle or baffle-less geometry.

Although, this is not the case with either KEF Q model I am aware of. They all show increased directivity index in the tweeter band, so a perfectly flat anechoic response on axis would contribute to a downward slope of the in-room response. So I would see no reason to tilt the response even more, and it would almost certainly lead to a dull tonality in most of rooms.

Do you know which model is described in your text?

 

[Goldhamster916]

Apart from the blades and LS60 I think the closest 3 way design in Kefs line up to the ls50 meta point source characteristic would be the reference 3 meta as it has only 2 woofers in total symmetrically above and below the coax. I would guess the reference 3 also has less bass distortion compared to the reference 1 meta due to having a much larger encloser and not much more bass extension. However I would guess the reference 1 meta has less diffraction since the verical baffle edge is much closer to the coax compared to the reference 3 but I am not sure.

 

[Goldhamster916]

To a certain degree, we can perceive tonality over a limited angle window. Particularly in a nearfield setup. Our head and shoulders contribute to diffraction, and we subtly and unconsciously move our head to improve localization, we can perceive more than tonally in just one spot like a microphone.

Of course, the off-axis sound is mostly reaching our ears via reflections. Early ones (ceiling, floor, side walls), discrete ones, delayed reflections, increasingly diffuse reverb. Our brain is actually pretty well trained in interpreting the pattern both in terms of time, angle and tonality. For the latter, the difference in tonality between direct sound and reflection is key. Of course we have to take into account that the direct sound is also containing reverb information (when listening to an acoustic recording from a concert hall) and that the indirect soundfield in the listening room might be dominating.

Speaker directivity is not only more important than frequency-dependent absorption, our brain can also compare it to the direct sound and different parts of the indirect soundfield which might carry a different tonality pattern (due to uneven directivity, lobing).



AFAIK Concept blade geometry predated the current generation of coaxial drivers, so it might have been a requirement for higher x-over freq.



As mentioned, it is unlikely that the difference in vertical localization solely originating from the different position of the bass driver, is really audible. What you are describing, is worth checking in a controlled test, and might hint to discrete reflections in the room creating the localization instability effect. That is a pretty common thing.

In this case it might be a good idea to exclude other factors potentially compromising the localization stability, so I recommend to decrease the listening distance of both speakers in a way the direct sound would also be dominant over the reflections. As KEFs are coaxial designs, you can go for a true nearfield setup until you feel this ´perfectly stable phantom center´ imaging. This also reduces the influence of reverb tonality which is another explanation why the floorstanders give a different spatial impression.

This ensures localization issues rooted in reflections are attenuated to a sufficient degree. I bet, the imaging will be as good as with the 2-way in this case.



That is not uncommon with speaker concepts showing an actual decrease in directivity index in the lowest band the tweeter is playing alone. That is particularly the case with speakers having a comparably small tweeter in a slim baffle or baffle-less geometry.

Although, this is not the case with either KEF Q model I am aware of. They all show increased directivity index in the tweeter band, so a perfectly flat anechoic response on axis would contribute to a downward slope of the in-room response. So I would see no reason to tilt the response even more, and it would almost certainly lead to a dull tonality in most of rooms.

Do you know which model is described in your text?

The reference 1 meta has quite a downward on axis response in the treble. According to Erin it leads to a neutral response in room

 

[thewas]

There is a theory behind this, based on Blauert´s HRTF localization theory and the diffuse vs. direct loudness model by Zwicker/Fastl. If the 0.8-2K band is dominant over 2.5-5K in the reverb, we perceive it as coming from behind, enveloping the listener, detached from the direct sources and the reverb pattern contained in the recording. A tonally balanced reverb relative to the direct sound or slightly dominating 2.5-5K band is contributing to a coherent, frontal perception of reverb behind the phantom sources, blending with the reverb in the recording. Which would actually make a change in directivity slope sounding more natural, if it happens in the right bands, of course.

This is a thesis/assumption, not a proven theory for it, I have read this thesis only in some German forums (usually from MEG fans who though like to ignore that the off-axis measurements of the models vary a lot and often contradictory) but never in any literature.

Do you have an explanation why you prefer rising directivity? Do you prefer it compared to constant directivity?

As I wrote I prefer it to a step in the directivity, real wide constant directivity is usually not existent on such compact and affordable loudspeakers.

 

[Heinrich]

To a certain degree, we can perceive tonality over a limited angle window. Particularly in a nearfield setup. Our head and shoulders contribute to diffraction, and we subtly and unconsciously move our head to improve localization, we can perceive more than tonally in just one spot like a microphone.

Frankly, but honestly, this and the following is, to my very personal taste, quite overstretched. If as much meticulous care and scrutinity would be invested in more relevant topics than by what a tiny degree I move my head when listening to stereo, I would happily nod like a dog's tail all week long.

On topic, I said that the effect of a less coaxial glitter of KEF R3 (in lack of a better word) in comparison to a point-ish KEF LS50 may be due to the vastly different spl capabilities, frequency response / extension etc. So the 'audition' was not that conclusive, maybe? See post#1. Nobody picked that up, the fair bit of 'science' thrown in. Fair enough, and now it's on a slope in treble - for itself, but on the Q-series. I give way to the bigger science to come.

 

[thewas]

Not picking on you, I've seen it so often!

The off axis sound is off axis, right? Where does it travel along in your home, and once coming after you, what does it do to you. actually? I hear you, the collapsing stereo imaging, that nasty 'smear', the undue colorations - but what about frequency dependend, diffusive reflectivity? You (hopefully) won't live and listen between bare walls in a tiled bathroom.

Before getting nitpicky about the speaker, and an ever so slight curvature of its baffle, what is the RT30 of the room in question, in the finest frequency resolution, down to half a dB? I've never seen such an analysis from anyone, but speakers are scrutinized that far - well, speaker directivity and room acoustics are interchangeable in that respect.

(And once again the original topic is left aside, in favor of discussing ... off axis sounds. Never mind.)

The reflectivity of course is usually unfortunately also not constant, but using such as an argument to totally ignore the importance of a loudspeaker directivity contradicts the research of Toole et al.

 

[Heinrich]

... but using such as an argument to totally ignore the importance of a loudspeaker directivity contradicts the research of Toole et al.

I didn't say "ignore", I said it was interchangeable, while the middle of the road enthusiasts ignores room acoustics. At least in the details he/she emphasizes with speakers. Anyway, seems like every other silent thread is giving opportunity to reiterate fruitless off-topic debates on the tiniest details of ...

 

[thewas]

I didn't say "ignore", I said it was interchangeable, while the middle of the road enthusiasts ignores room acoustics. At least in the details he/she emphasizes with speakers.

What matters in the end is that chances are larger that a smooth radiating loudspeaker will play in a typical room less coloured than one with a random directivity mismatch which by coincidence will have the inverse sign of the room reflectivity function.

Anyway, seems like every other silent thread is giving opportunity to reiterate fruitless off-topic debates on the tiniest details of ...

Thankfully I don't see such yet, but it can happen, talking about such won't unfortunately prevail it though or reduce the entropy of the thread.

 

[Arindal]

This is a thesis/assumption, not a proven theory for it, I have read this thesis only in some German forums (usually from MEG fans

We have to separate 2 things here: The theory of Blauert regarding boosted frequency bands defining a perceived angle and Zwickert/Fastl´s loudness curve, are solid scientific findings confirmed over and over again by binaural measurements. A variety of HRTF-based algorithms such as virtual immersive surround via earphones or lots of virtual surround algorithms are based on these findings. They would not work, if the underlying groundwork would be wrong and not applicable to reverb in a listening room.

The other thing is the conclusion from that drawn by MEG that the directivity index of a speaker should not be constant but engineered to serve the aforementioned scientific findings. It would basically mean that frequency bands drawing the localization of reverb away from the stereo base, particularly the 0.8-2K band, should be underrepresented in the diffuse field, while the 2.5-5K should be overrepresented, i.e. lower directivity index over an octave.

While I found it confirmed in controlled listening tests that this engineering has the desired impact on perceived proximity and ambience, I don't support the idea that it should be implemented in any speaker. For the simple reason that it is not a standard in studio control rooms and has never been, so millions of recordings have been mixed and mastered without this, implementing it would lead to incompatibilities.

This does not mean the reverb field should be colorated the opposite way with underrepresented brillance/treble in the reverb, like suggested by supporters of the Harman curve, or presumably some people at KEF. In numerous listening tests I found the theories of Earl Geddes, Siegfried Linkwitz, Andrew Jones and some others widely confirmed, that a constant directivity and even indirect field frequency response in the critical bands is best.

Note that combining neutral direct sound with neutral indirect sound is not only a theoretical, intuitive ideal. It is also the easiest way to have home listening conditions which are closer in terms of tonal balance to the average studio conditions, where lower level of reflections, better room treatment and more frequency-independent absorption is standard.

I never found any reproduction setup with dominant midrange/presence reverb and attenuated diffuse field above 2.5K anyhow convincing. It always leads to dull reverb and unnatural ambience as I have found it in numerous listening tests. So could you give me any solid reason why this should be preferrable?

I prefer it to a step in the directivity, real wide constant directivity is usually not existent on such compact and affordable loudspeakers.

Loudspeakers which have been designed specifically to meet the ideal of constant directivity, might be more expensive and less compact, that is true.

Nevertheless there are examples of affordable speakers to come much closer to the ideal of constant directivity at least between 800 and 8,000Hz where it is most required (and least likely to be correctable by EQ). I have heard examples by Wharfedale, Focal, Technics, Elac, Paradigm, Dali, to name some widely available brands.

 

[aarons915]

To a certain degree, we can perceive tonality over a limited angle window. Particularly in a nearfield setup. Our head and shoulders contribute to diffraction, and we subtly and unconsciously move our head to improve localization, we can perceive more than tonally in just one spot like a microphone.

Of course, the off-axis sound is mostly reaching our ears via reflections. Early ones (ceiling, floor, side walls), discrete ones, delayed reflections, increasingly diffuse reverb. Our brain is actually pretty well trained in interpreting the pattern both in terms of time, angle and tonality. For the latter, the difference in tonality between direct sound and reflection is key. Of course we have to take into account that the direct sound is also containing reverb information (when listening to an acoustic recording from a concert hall) and that the indirect soundfield in the listening room might be dominating.

Speaker directivity is not only more important than frequency-dependent absorption, our brain can also compare it to the direct sound and different parts of the indirect soundfield which might carry a different tonality pattern (due to uneven directivity, lobing).



AFAIK Concept blade geometry predated the current generation of coaxial drivers, so it might have been a requirement for higher x-over freq.



As mentioned, it is unlikely that the difference in vertical localization solely originating from the different position of the bass driver, is really audible. What you are describing, is worth checking in a controlled test, and might hint to discrete reflections in the room creating the localization instability effect. That is a pretty common thing.

In this case it might be a good idea to exclude other factors potentially compromising the localization stability, so I recommend to decrease the listening distance of both speakers in a way the direct sound would also be dominant over the reflections. As KEFs are coaxial designs, you can go for a true nearfield setup until you feel this ´perfectly stable phantom center´ imaging. This also reduces the influence of reverb tonality which is another explanation why the floorstanders give a different spatial impression.

This ensures localization issues rooted in reflections are attenuated to a sufficient degree. I bet, the imaging will be as good as with the 2-way in this case.


Do you know which model is described in your text?

I get there are a lot of theories as to why it may or may not occur but before all of that I was simply saying people should listen and compare, any best buy that carries KEF will usually be able to do this.

If frequencies above around 200Hz are localizable then why is it far fetched that frequencies in the bass drivers are being localized if they go up to 500Hz?

KEF specifically mentions the driver arrangement on the Blades is to create an apparent point source in their white paper so I'm not sure how it is relevant that the concept came before.

If you look at the measurements in the end of the Q series meta whitepaper you can see all of the early reflections and sound power curves are smooth and downward sloping with various effects on the listening window response, some are also downward sloping while the Concerto is more of a high shelf.

I think some people are way over complicating this, I was simply saying that if you compare a 2 way KEF speaker with one of the 3 ways, the vocals aren't as anchored as the 2 way, it's not really a flaw, more like a compromise to get more output, more extended bass, etc.

 

[Arindal]

If frequencies above around 200Hz are localizable then why is it far fetched that frequencies in the bass drivers are being localized if they go up to 500Hz?

Because ´localizable´ in first instance refers to horizontal localization for which our ears ist most sensitive. This is certainly not at play if the woofer is located below the coaxial. Vertical localization is much less precise, requires significantly more distance between the different sources to distinguish them. And even if the woofer plays up to 500Hz, in the transitional band it is very unlikely that it can be localized as a separated source.

I was simply saying that if you compare a 2 way KEF speaker with one of the 3 ways, the vocals aren't as anchored as the 2 way,

I am not doubting your subjective perception. But trying to find an answer to the question where this phenomenon originates from, inevitably leads to a slightly more complicated psychoacoustical discussion.

 

[aarons915]

Because ´localizable´ in first instance refers to horizontal localization for which our ears ist most sensitive. This is certainly not at play if the woofer is located below the coaxial. Vertical localization is much less precise, requires significantly more distance between the different sources to distinguish them. And even if the woofer plays up to 500Hz, in the transitional band it is very unlikely that it can be localized as a separated source.



I am not doubting your subjective perception. But trying to find an answer to the question where this phenomenon originates from, inevitably leads to a slightly more complicated psychoacoustical discussion.

I don't think that's what I was trying to say, our auditory system has the ability to localize sounds correct? If you played test signals in the left, center, right, right surround, left surrounds, you'd hear them in distinct positions around the room? I'm not sure what that has to do with reflections, it's simply recognizing where a sound originates from. In the case of the Q6, you have sounds originating from 3 different locations even though they are very well integrated and below 500Hz is harder to localize, when directly comparing to a true point source, you can hear differences. I agree it is subtle and not hugely distracting

 

[Heinrich]

... our auditory system ...

Why is it, that you speak for others? There is no 'our auditory system'! Mine is different from your's simply because I'm connected to my senses in a very personal way. I'm not 'following the science' of treating humans as machines.

... test signals ... the case of the Q6, you have sounds originating from 3 different locations even though they are very well integrated ... comparing to a true point source, you can hear ...

Why is it that you ever once again drag the playback into fear of missing out, uncertainty about technologies, and doubt in the truth of it?

As I said already, to compare KEF's R3 and LS50 is nothing that would reveal any other than the R3 to be vastly superior in every aspect. Now the claim is introduced that the R3 is less coaxial, but you refuse to acknowledge that coaxial is a rarity anyway. You do not supplement your bold claim by any technological reasoning than observing, visually, an asymmetry in the design of the R3 - nothing, not the least of any engineering insight. A 'might be', and 'I hear that' in sighted, anecdotal auditions as a passer-by. It is not about 'psychacoustics', definitely.

This got remastered, on Tidal obviously: The Birthday Party, She's hit (org/ 1982) I loved it during my last visit to the U.S. What a drag, the psyco Cold Turkey grime is all gone ... think that matters a lot more today.