Yes, but 90dB is quite loud! The R7s are likely similar at a more modest level (i.e a smaller room - mine is < 2000cuft) - I have a pair and and measured distortion is neglible at my usual listening level - <75 dB. The R7s replace venerable and recapped Kef 104.2s which were briefly replaced by Kef LS50s (nasty distortion at about 90 Hz and now relegated to back channels).
I'm only saying PA stuff, which are made to play at high SPL for longer periods of time. However, the disadvantage may then be that they automatically do not sound so good at lower or let's say normal or even high listening volumes (compared to good HiFi speakers such as the KEF R11). I know a generalization but still.
If the agreement between your own relative measurements is +-1.5dB due to room noise then you should stop publishing measurements until you fixed that. But it isn't. It's much higher and it seems to me like we're not on the same page with what we're talking about. Again, this is a relative measurement. Relative to your own measurement. The microphone could be an SM58 and the relative agreement between measurements like this will still be good.
This is not the case for active speakers with transparent limiters. The speaker could be 10dB into compression without audible distortion.
Most of the other graphs are not adjusted to show the data in a psychoacoutically representative way, but to make the comparison between devices easier. If you went with this rule for everything, you'd have to stop publishing any kind of DAC distortion data, because it's all inaudible. Publishing data in a more user friendly format is always a good thing. And I'm repeating myself, but if someone misinterprets the data because it's easier to see in the graph than it is to hear in practice then I'm sure someone on here will step in and correct that misguided assumption.
I hate speakers that are only priced in pairs. Sometimes we need 3 speakers.
They did fix it, it just needs to be pushed in.
The white papers provide some info, but we don’t know all of the differences and what improvements are attributed to what design and materials choices. The drivers, crossovers, and cabinets are all different.
does the shadow flare decides to move back after a while or does it stay in?
They're 3000 Euro each, so probably ball park same price as the KEF R11. Amir hasn't reviewed the A700, but I saw the Erin review just now. The A700 reaches lower in the bass & without the sloped down bass shelf. His distortion plots are in a different format to Amir's, do you know how distortion compares?
I'd have to dig in and try to interpret the measurements, if possible.
I've posted this before, and it's somewhat outdated now, but here's a 2015 video where you can see the whole of the LS50 (original), R series (2012), Reference and Blade drivers at 4:30. These have all since been updated to be "Meta", and the Reference and Blade Meta now share a Uni-Q, but otherwise the general structural differences between R, LS50 and Reference remain.
The 3-inch voice coil (nodal drive) for Blade has been dropped, presumably superseded by refinement of the "lossy interface" introduced in the 2018 R series, described in its white paper.
There is a sharp edge some place that acts like a little speaker out of phase causing some cancellation on axis. I don't know if this is the speaker edge or driver.
