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

[Kachda]

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?

The impression I got is that he thinks they are good for normal living rooms (that do not have a lot of acoustic treatment), but that you really need a sub to fill in the sound. I am strongly considering getting a sub after that review, since I have those speakers.

 

[hardisj]

The impression I got is that he thinks they are good for normal living rooms (that do not have a lot of acoustic treatment), but that you really need a sub to fill in the sound.

Exactly.

As I said in the review, the Kef tend to provide a soundstage unlike any other that I have had in regards to the layering effect. It's awesome. But the width isn't as wide as I would personally like, though with adjustment of toe-in/toe-out, that can be improved.

I feel that a subwoofer with these speakers really gives it a new level of performance. But, that shouldn't come as a shock because they are bookshelf speakers and - generally - bookshelf sized speakers don't have the output capabilities I want below the 60-80Hz range.

I think these paired with a good subwoofer (integrated in to the system properly) provides an incredible setup. YMMV.

 

[digitalfrost]

If you gonna add a subwoofer anyway, why not skip the R3 and go LS50.

 

[MZKM]

If you gonna add a subwoofer anyway, why not skip the R3 and go LS50.

I hope you mean the newer Meta. However, even then you have lower sensitivity, so wouldn’t be my first pick for home theater.

 

[Descartes]

I use seven of the original KEF LS50 in a 7.2.4 surround sound system in a 12 x 11x 9 and they work beautifully with n this small home theater!
I bought them unfortunately before I knew about the very good reviews and measurements from Amir! If it was today I would just buy Revel M16!

 

[hardisj]

If you gonna add a subwoofer anyway, why not skip the R3 and go LS50.

Because I wouldn't want the midrange (waveguide) moving at all. Unless you crossed the LS50 high enough that it barely moves at all then I wouldn't do it. With the R3, the HPF for the midrange is 400Hz.

Additionally, the surround of the LS50 is less ideal than that of the R3 (or likewise) as the profile is much more smooth and conducive to providing a smooth transition from the speaker cone/surround to the baffle/trim ring.

 

[stren]

R3 should be cleaner below 400Hz distortion due to the dedicated woofer (Amir's review on LS50 shows 1% distortion around 150Hz I think, vs 80 Hz for Erin's R3 - that's not apples to apples though). Meta should have better distortion around the 1KHz part due to the meta material. R3 definitely seemed superior vs the old LS50. Vs the meta, I'd say it depends how loud you want to go. Seems like both want subs.

 

[thewas]

Additionally, the surround of the LS50 is less ideal than that of the R3 (or likewise) as the profile is much more smooth and conducive to providing a smooth transition from the speaker cone/surround to the baffle/trim ring.

On the other hand the baffle of the LS50 has a more optimal shape (which the R series partially tries to compensate with their shadow flare trim ring) and shows in the better directivity behaviour of the LS50 Meta vs the R3, everything is a compromise.

 

[Descartes]

So should the KEF LS50 be crossed over at 150Hz then?

 

[Kachda]

On the other hand the baffle of the LS50 has a more optimal shape (which the R series partially tries to compensate with their shadow flare trim ring) and shows in the better directivity behaviour of the LS50 Meta vs the R3, everything is a compromise.

The best combination would be a ls50 baffle with a bass driver on the side.

 

[Descartes]

The best combination would be a ls50 baffle with a bass driver on the side.

Blades

 

[Kachda]

So should the KEF LS50 be crossed over at 150Hz then?

Typically subs are crossed between 60-80hz because otherwise you run the risk of being able to perceive sounds coming from them

 

[thewas]

The best combination would be a ls50 baffle with a bass driver on the side.

Or on the rear side and the front drivers delayed per DSP similar to the D&D 8c.

 

[Kachda]

Blades

Yup. But can they make it 5k instead of 20k ? Or as someone else suggested, create a frankinls50 by attaching a kc62 below a ls50. Calling @jackocleebrown , make it happen!

 

[stren]

LS60 = LS50W2 + 2xKC62 all in one cabinet = mini blade

I can dream right?

 

[Descartes]

Typically subs are crossed between 60-80hz because otherwise you run the risk of being able to perceive sounds coming from them

Yes, I cross them over at 80Hz and they sound good maybe the fact that I sit only 6 feet away from them I don’t need to blast the volume as I like to keep my hearing intact for a long time!

 

[Ricardojoa]

Maybe the harshness is caused by the resonance from 3khz to 7khz. You can see that from amir graphs.

 

[hardisj]

Maybe the harshness is caused by the resonance from 3khz to 7khz.

No. I nailed it down to the 2.5-3kHz region.

 

[jonfitch]

LS60 = LS50W2 + 2xKC62 all in one cabinet = mini blade

I can dream right?

I feel like a side woofer would kind of lose some of that point source magic, if only for marketing purposes.

I wonder if it's possible to make a more compact WMTW without going Genelec style with slot vented woofers. So like a shorter Paradigm Founders 70 LCR. I'm guessing you'd have to go with smaller 5" woofers or develop something similar to the oval shaped woofers to pull it off though.

 

[ace_xp2]

When the 80hz crossover really took off, it was because it was IIRC a couple octaves below what the best test subjects could localize when they were hammering out the THX standard. Which is to say that a steeper slope then 4th order or two subs co-located would let you go higher then 80hz with little to no chance of localization.