• 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!

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review (Erin's Audio Corner)

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
EQ made them much better but they still sounded "energetic", not harsh or fatiguing like the 1st time but they wore on me after awhile.
Just curious as to whether they are toed in to the listening position, or firing straight ahead, or something in between.
 

MrPeabody

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 19, 2020
Messages
657
Likes
942
Location
USA
Nice review, Erin - much appreciated as always.

Anyway -this has bugged me for a second about the KEF stuff. What is going on with the slope down in the bass? Amir's measurements on other KEF models show this as well. View attachment 118287
What you see there is the evidence of choices made with respect to enclosure size and port tuning frequency. There are a couple of mild corners (which are essentially mild peaks), one at about 120 Hz and the other at about 40 Hz. The region between them looks unusually straight, but the degree of straightness here depends on the spacing between the two mild peaks. The peaks are the approximate locations of the two resonances, the lower one being the port tuning frequency and the upper one being the resonant frequency for the driver mounted in the enclosure. The unmistakable presence of the upper peak suggests that the enclosure is somewhat small for the driver. This is something that you see with lots of small speakers, and with small ported speakers, it is often overshadowed by the stronger peak at the port tuning frequency, especially when the port is tuned to higher frequency. If the port tuning frequency is lower, the straight line between the two peaks will be replaced by a dip. Some people who build their own ported speaks and who are sticklers for proper "alignments" might say that the enclosure needed to be a little bigger and that the port tuning frequency needed to be a little higher. But it's always about the tradeoffs. If you draw a smooth curve that clips those two peaks, the one at about 120 Hz is maybe about +2 dB. The lower one, at the port tuning frequency, is stronger, but probably no stronger than with any other ported speaker, just more noticeable than with other ported speakers because of the greater-than-typical spacing between the two resonances. The two mild peaks are both intentional and were introduced in order to improve efficiency in bass frequencies, thereby improving bass sensitivity.
 

aarons915

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
685
Likes
1,140
Location
Chicago, IL
Just curious as to whether they are toed in to the listening position, or firing straight ahead, or something in between.

I should have mentioned that, I always listen to KEFs pointed straight ahead as the listening window is generally smoother than directly on-axis, it's also why you see in my EQ that I use the LW alone and don't mess with the On-axis curve.
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,717
Likes
2,897
Location
Finland
Bass response looks like the speaker in meant to be placed next to wall or on a desk. Funny that we mostly see these shoeboxes sitting on a pole...
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,823
Likes
4,517
Did you see the Andrew Jones vid where is says the BBC dip is just from bad driver matching? He really seemed to dismiss the myth.

Thanks for the link! I was not aware of this video. Only watched a few seconds but will have to come back to it. Andrew Jones is one of those people who naturally (seemingly; training/practice to reach that point is just as likely) conveys knowledge in an interesting and engaging way.

I also had to check the date - it's gotten to the point where it's actually jarring to see two unrelated humans sitting close to each other (let alone unmasked!) and shaking hands, until one realizes that the video was shot pre-pandemic.
 

Vovgan

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
188
Likes
346
Location
Moscow, Russia
I suggest a crossover in the neighborhood of 60-80Hz. I’ve had good luck with the SVS subwoofers

Do you think you might try crossing at 200 Hz and sharing the result? I crossed my Revel M106s (which are in the same ballpark as these KEFs) with a pair of REL's S510 ( 〜 SVS PB2000) @200Hz and boy was this a difference compared to crossing @80 or even 120 Hz! First, the soundstage became much wider without getting blurred. Second, the sound was super clean even at high volume! Especially in the movies (I crank up the volume), all harshness at high volumes just disappeared. I think it is not very audiofil-ish to cross @200 Hz, but I'd never heard such good sound until I tried this. Yes everything below 200 Hz became mono but no other downside. Maybe would not work so well with a single sub at either side of the main system.
Would be great to hear your and other's experiences.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3873.jpg
    IMG_3873.jpg
    246 KB · Views: 178
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Do you think you might try crossing at 200 Hz and sharing the result?

I would but I have already boxed them up for return.

In the past I have used subwoofers crossed up to 200Hz. As long as the wavelength doesn't exceed the distance then you still get that "point source" sound. But if you go beyond that then things can tend to pull to one speaker or the other.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,244
Likes
11,482
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Do you think you might try crossing at 200 Hz and sharing the result? I crossed my Revel M106s (which are in the same ballpark as these KEFs) with a pair of REL's S510 ( 〜 SVS PB2000) @200Hz and boy was this a difference compared to crossing @80 or even 120 Hz! First, the soundstage became much wider without getting blurred. Second, the sound was super clean even at high volume! Especially in the movies (I crank up the volume), all harshness just disappeared. I think it is not very audiofil-ish to cross @200 Hz, but I never heard such good sound until I tried. Yes everything below 200 Hz became mono but no other downside.
Would be great to hear your and other's experiences.
I tried crossing my center channel higher, but then I heard male vocals out of the sub and it just felt off.
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,244
Likes
11,482
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
It cuts off the DI plots if I make it 50dB scale. Amir's is the same way. I was going to set mine at 50dB but I knew people would complain it wasn't the same as Amir's. :D
Amir’s now are 50dB, but yes his R3 review is of the same scale. For mine, I subtract the DI offset and just use a dual axis.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Amir’s now are 50dB, but yes his R3 review is of the same scale.

Right.

For mine, I subtract the DI offset and just use a dual axis.

I did that in my previous measurements before I was using the NFS. But the Klippel software doesn't currently permit dual axes in the CTA-2034 graphic.
 

muad

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
415
Likes
471
First of all, again super review Erin, many thanks!

Funnily since yesterday I am experimenting with a 2,5 kHz BBC/presence dip per EQ on both my LS50 pairs (Anniversary and Meta) as I was analysing the in room responses of a Revel loudspeaker of a member here and till now I enjoyed it with many recordings, sweetening them like a glutamate flavoring.
My theory for now is that most recordings are mixed and mastered with non concentric driver loudspeakers that show a dip in that region in their vertical radiation and sound power which they of course partially compensate during the production process.
If you or others want to test it you can try with one PEQ like 2,5 kHz, -3dB, Q=2.
Damn, this makes so much sense to me. I found speaker that lacked the dip at 2.5khz including the R3 and dbr62 I owned had a harsh quality on many recording, and we're especially hard to listen to at high volumes. My current pair of Selah towers are extremely linear except for a 2.5db 2.5khz dip in the MMM in-room response. It sounds really good with pretty much anything I listen to.

Anecdotal, I know. But if recording engineers have been compensating for a crossover dip...
 
Last edited:

whyfi

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2021
Messages
43
Likes
58
Did you see the Andrew Jones vid where is says the BBC dip is just from bad driver matching? He really seemed to dismiss the myth.
As a newbie to the hifi world this interview was very interesting and informative, thanks for posting.
 

jhaider

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
2,823
Likes
4,517
Do you think you might try crossing at 200 Hz and sharing the result? I crossed my Revel M106s (which are in the same ballpark as these KEFs) with a pair of REL's S510 ( 〜 SVS PB2000) @200Hz and boy was this a difference compared to crossing @80 or even 120 Hz! First, the soundstage became much wider without getting blurred. Second, the sound was super clean even at high volume! Especially in the movies (I crank up the volume), all harshness at high volumes just disappeared.

Keep in mind what you did is basically make a synthetic 3-way speaker. KEF is already there, albeit with smaller woofers than your synthetic 3-way setup. With this KEF there may be headroom and clarity gains running subs higher than normal, but any relative improvement to a well-optimized integration would have a lower ceiling than with your 2-way Revels, simply because KEF's dedicated midbass does not play as high as the midwoofer in your Revels.

Also, it may not make a practical difference depending on program, but if I were taking the subs that high I'd want them to be run in stereo, rather than summed mono.
 

echopraxia

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
1,109
Likes
2,696
Location
California
Amazing review as always!

Bass response looks like the speaker in meant to be placed next to wall or on a desk. Funny that we mostly see these shoeboxes sitting on a pole...
When I briefly owned these I did prefer them closer to the wall than not.

Out of curiosity, did you notice this before my review? I'm just curious if I'm the only one because I wasn't sure if it was the room or the speaker.
FWIW when I owned these I also noticed a very slight treble harshness around this region (I am generally painfully sensitive to any excessive treble for some reason), ironically combined with a slight “boring” sound character possibly attributable to the broad midrange recession or maybe something related to shadow flare production tolerances.

It sounds like @aarons915 has figured out how to fix these with EQ, which is encouraging since KEF R3 + EQ tinkering seems like an amazing deal in terms of being similar performance to e.g. Genelec coaxials for a fraction of the price, however with notably narrower beam width which depending on personal preference may or may not be desireable.

What’s really interesting is the huge difference made by very tiny variations in the “shadow flare” positioning. Unless KEF’s QC and production tolerances are extraordinarily precise, it seems this could also definitely result in some people loving their R3 and others finding it to sound “off” in subtle ways (as was my experience).
 

stren

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
254
Likes
298
Something that popped up in my head - would it be possible to plot the delta between estimated in room response and actual room response for the three types of good speakers you've had of each type - i.e. narrow directivity (r3), wide directivity (f226be), cardioid (8c). It might be meaningless of course, but perhaps it might show some incite in how each one is reacting in your room. Presumably the 8c should show a smaller delta from the estimated to the actual room measurement?
 

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,244
Likes
11,482
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Something that popped up in my head - would it be possible to plot the delta between estimated in room response and actual room response for the three types of good speakers you've had of each type - i.e. narrow directivity (r3), wide directivity (f226be), cardioid (8c). It might be meaningless of course, but perhaps it might show some incite in how each one is reacting in your room. Presumably the 8c should show a smaller delta from the estimated to the actual room measurement?
The speakers and mic would need to be in the same positions.
 

amper42

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,583
Likes
2,286
I listen to the long video review but couldn't figure out if Erin was recommending the R3 or not. Did any one figure that out?
 
Top Bottom