KEF R3 OR BOWER & WILKINS S706 s2 ???

[Ageve]

Very good. Hopefully you read and understood the entire post from Amir, which was actually in his F35 review.

Hopefully I did.

My location for speaker testing is in one corner of my room. That is emphasizing bass modes.
...
As it is, speakers with more bass get penalized. With my Revel Salon 2 tested the same way, the peak at 102 Hz was even higher requiring more gain reduction.

That's the whole explanation. Nothing more, nothing less.

This is what people need to get into their heads - just because the so-called measurements suggest a speaker SHOULD sound good, it doesn't necessarily mean that it actually will.

But it does sound good. It wasn't the speaker causing the problems. It was the room. A speaker that's immune to room modes doesn't exist.

It didn't affect the M16 as much because R3, F35 and Salon 2 all have deeper bass. It's really that simple.

If anything, it's a very good example of how unreliable subjective opinions can be.

edit: I don't know why, but this thread made me think of this scene.

 

[preload]

But it does sound good. It wasn't the speaker causing the problems. It was the room. A speaker that's immune to room modes doesn't exist.

I think you missed the point. In an ordinary room, the R3 loudspeaker did NOT sound good. So who cares if it sounds good in an anechoic chamber or an ideal, treated listening room? You can't simply say: "it's not the speaker, it's the room" unless you have the ability to change the room around.
Good engineering goes beyond creating a product with perfect measurements in a lab, it also considers the use case, which is how the product will perform in its intended setting. I believe this is what B&W does - and is why their loudspeakers sound good in living rooms, but don't necessarily measure perfectly smoothly in anechoic conditions.

If anything, it's a very good example of how unreliable subjective opinions can be.

No, it's the opposite. This was a textbook example of why we cannot dismiss a subjective listening impression, even a single one. Remember what I said earlier? Subjective impressions that do not match predictions based on measurements are at the very least hypothesis generating. What did Amir do here? He had a subjective impression that didn't match his prediction based on measurements, and he generated a hypothesis.

My question now is how many of these loudspeakers that supposedly measure well actually sound mediocre in actual listening rooms because they do not account for typical room modes or floor bounce interference based on the height of the drivers, etc.

To quote Amir again: "We make fun of subjectivists often but hey, maybe we should listen to them sometimes." While none of us here appear to be subjectivists, per se, maybe you should consider what Amir is telling everyone.

P.S. Teenage social media influencers use memes and videos to make their point. I notice that you've been relying a lot on these lately. Do you really think those strategies work on people here?

 

[Ageve]

In an ordinary room, the R3 loudspeaker did NOT sound good.

In the corner of his room, it didn't sound good, just like Revel F35 and Salon 2. Please read the F35 review.

It has nothing to do with speaker measurements. Everyone knows that room interaction has a huge influence on sound quality. It affects all speakers, but especially those with deep bass.

No, it's the opposite.

To quote Amir again: "We make fun of subjectivists often but hey, maybe we should listen to them sometimes." While none of us here appear to be subjectivists, per se, maybe you should consider what Amir is telling everyone.
...
P.S. Teenage social media influencers use memes and videos to make their point. I notice that you've been relying a lot on these lately. Do you really think those strategies work on people here?

We make fun of subjectivists often but hey, maybe we should listen to them sometimes. So I setup the speaker to play pink noise for 24 hours. Then I played my favorite tracks again. Wow. I could not believe my ears. All the micro-detail and detail materialized. Incredible!!!

Well, it would be incredible if the above was true but none of that is real. Where do you think we are? We don't believe in fantasties.

 

[Ageve]

I definitely have a response, but I realize I'm likely interacting with someone of a far different maturity level and it's honestly not worth my time.

Please don't confuse immaturity with a sense of humour. It can be a good way to lighten the mood.

You quoted a joke from Amir, but left out everything that made it funny, including the point (making fun of subjectivists).

To quote Amir again: "We make fun of subjectivists often but hey, maybe we should listen to them sometimes." While none of us here appear to be subjectivists, per se, maybe you should consider what Amir is telling everyone

And the full quote:

We make fun of subjectivists often but hey, maybe we should listen to them sometimes. So I setup the speaker to play pink noise for 24 hours. Then I played my favorite tracks again. Wow. I could not believe my ears. All the micro-detail and detail materialized. Incredible!!!

Well, it would be incredible if the above was true but none of that is real. Where do you think we are? We don't believe in fantasties.

 

[JRiggs]

Preload, nowhere in Amir’s subjective analysis did he state that the R3 was a terrible speakers. That’s just not the case at all.

Erin has also done extensive objective testing and subjective listening of the R3. Interestingly, he noted significant differences in listening in his “dead” home theater vs his living room.

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

 

[preload]

I suppose it's like swearing in this community, but amid all these sheer endless and sometimes nerdy discussions about frequency responses and comparable measurements in the end your ears must decide which speakers you like most in your own room.

I agree, and I think that's the bottom line. I think this was demonstrated very clearly when Amir had very unfavorable impressions of the R3 while listening in his own room. It required room measurements and parametric EQ in Roon to correct. Unfortunately, EQ isn't going to be part of everyone's playback chain.

It's silly to think that someone should say "the R3 doesn't sound good in my room, but it measures better in an anechoic chamber, therefore it is the higher performing speaker and I will learn to live with it." Yet that's what some folks appear to be advocating when they say to ignore subjective impressions.

Which brings me back to B&W. If their speakers are, in fact, designed to have a slightly elevated treble relative to their midbass, then that may actually be by design - to correct for a predictable situation where the room is exaggerating bass/midbass weighting, such as what happened with the R3 in Amir's room.

 

[preload]

Preload, nowhere in Amir’s subjective analysis did he state that the R3 was a terrible speakers. That’s just not the case at all.

This is what Amir wrote:
"Alas, once again subjective feeling was low. My standard routine is to cycle through my reference clips that I have selected during all my normal listening to sound superb on my Revel Salon 2 Speakers. Sadly hardly any of them sounded all that good here. Yes, the highs were there. The lows at times were there. But overall experience was unexciting and unengaging for lack of a better word."

"Terrible" is a relative term, but he clearly did not think they sounded good.

Erin has also done extensive objective testing and subjective listening of the R3. Interestingly, he noted significant differences in listening in his “dead” home theater vs his living room.

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Interesting! Thanks for finding this. Another data point indicating how much the room itself matters relative to the anechoic measurements for the R3's.

 

[Benedium]

Why do we always judge people's competence, when we should just demand user friendly technology? Reward the smart for helping the less smart I say.

 

[Galliardist]

I agree, and I think that's the bottom line. I think this was demonstrated very clearly when Amir had very unfavorable impressions of the R3 while listening in his own room. It required room measurements and parametric EQ in Roon to correct. Unfortunately, EQ isn't going to be part of everyone's playback chain.

It's silly to think that someone should say "the R3 doesn't sound good in my room, but it measures better in an anechoic chamber, therefore it is the higher performing speaker and I will learn to live with it." Yet that's what some folks appear to be advocating when they say to ignore subjective impressions.

Which brings me back to B&W. If their speakers are, in fact, designed to have a slightly elevated treble relative to their midbass, then that may actually be by design - to correct for a predictable situation where the room is exaggerating bass/midbass weighting, such as what happened with the R3 in Amir's room.

... thanks for reminding me that I'm a subjectivist. I buy that the R3 is "better" in that measurements suggest that you are "more likely to prefer it", but it remains a starting point, not the end point.

However, there are two other things to consider, and they both have come up in this thread.

Firstly, there's the question of sighted preference. We do actually mostly listen to and use our systems sighted. There really is no need to use speakers that we think are ugly, and that will have an effect on us over time, I'm sure, even if they sound great on first listen.

Secondly, there's a lack of long term use evidence. I've owned four pairs of speakers in my lifetime, so have kept each pair on average for more than a decade. I've "upgraded" twice - once after passing on my first speakers to a friend who needed something quick at a time when I was going away for a time, and once when I started listening to more baroque music and found my existing speakers subjectively not quite up to some aspects of that).
But when people in forums ask "what speakers have you owned", the average length for an audiophile iseems to be close to 20. I've never got this... so some people collect, and others may be changing rooms regularly or running a couple of systems, but really? If the important thing is the room/speaker interface, why mess with it so much, unless you are tiring of speakers, making a wrong choice continuously and moving on, or not really concerned with getting decent sound at all but just playing at it? (Maybe I'm not the right person to comment on this. I've only upgraded a working electronic component in my system once in my life as well. Still, it surprises me). And we must be older on average to fit so many pairs into our lifetime, or very keen collectors indeed?

We see it here as well. People buy what we might term "accurate" speakers by their lights, spend months adding room treatments, EQ and so on, get things to a point where they pronounce themselves "happy", say the sound is "fine", and in the same post as saying all this worry about their next upgrade. I see people on this forum who have speakers on rotation, as well. That must be the very definition of listening to the system rather than the music. (And now my biases are really showing, but I see everything about these matters as a "starting point" and if your endpoint is rotating speakers and listening to different sounds, just ignore me on this point and carry on).

Now where was i? Oh, yes, long term evidence. We tend to get initial approval of speakers (in dem rooms, when they first arrive in the home) and the inevitable "what do I upgrade to next? comes along and the same speaker is no longer great, or you want something more.

This is where we can bring some more social science to bear. We can ask long term owners of speakers why they changed, how long they had the speakers, the rating they would have given the speaker at the point when they changed, their day to day use of speakers: maybe we can relate the changes over a lifetime to speaker measurements and changes of home/room, changes to the rest of the system, etc. Such a study may be fascinating and informative. It may be possible even to do a "7 Up" style survey following a group of younger audiophiles and see how their attitudes and approach changes over time.

 

[MaxBuck]

Good grief. Are people still arguing over this entirely subjective matter?

If you like the way B&Ws sound, get B&Ws. If you prefer KEFs, buy KEFs. And don't worry about what someone else says in either event.

 

[symphara]

P.S. Teenage social media influencers use memes and videos to make their point. I notice that you've been relying a lot on these lately. Do you really think those strategies work on people here?

It worked on me, he made it on my ignore list instantly. I just cannot be bothered with meme-lawyers, or with those who obviously missed the basic manners class.

BTW I didn't say (and it's not my opinion) that R3 is a terrible speaker. It's an ok speaker. But I wouldn't recommend it either.

I listened to the R series on two separate occasions - before and after seeing and understanding measurements. For two different rooms. I specifically gave them the extra chance because they measure well. Perhaps I had missed something the first time and I could learn to love them?

What the measurements support:
- they are neutral (fairly flat FR), without excessive roll-off, it feels like the frequencies "are there" (minus the bass, we'll talk about that separately)
- smooth off-axis response - for me this is a feature that one may or may not necessarily want; if you only sit in the MLP, I am not sure it helps that much and it takes away the ability to change the sound by changing the toe-in, so it's very important to like the base sound balance
- all of them, including the R11, need a sub to achieve full range or anything close to it. In fact all KEFs up to Reference 5 suffer from this particular affliction, my guess because KEF uses too small drivers and a lot of tech that in marketing speech makes up for the lack of size and in reality doesn't.

What's outside the measurements: a strange lack of dynamism/energy, sheer inability to convey scale, they simply sound "small" no matter how you move up in the series.

That's why I would never recommend them. These are speakers I listen to, and say "meh".

In fact, the second time around, when I needed speakers for a much smaller room without the treatments etc and I was seriously considering the R7 (yet again, remember the measurements), I ended up with Amphion Heliums, which are also neutral, smooth off-axis etc. but unlike the KEFs, they sound lovely and engaging, to paraphrase @amirm.

 

[bodhi]

Good grief. Are people still arguing over this entirely subjective matter?

If you like the way B&Ws sound, get B&Ws. If you prefer KEFs, buy KEFs. And don't worry about what someone else says in either event.

The argument was actually about whether or not it is intellectually honest to recommend the R3, a speaker that has excellent measures, modest price, good build quality and with mostly praising reviews. I think the main argument against this is that amir though it didn't sound good, which is actually not true at all. Of course after the lie became apparent the story now changed a bit, as it usually does. I'm done with that part of discussion as well as the discusser myself.

Still, it is a very important subject. Getting information about buying stuff is probably one of, if not the most, important function of these kind of forums.

BTW I have demoed both speakers in question along a few others (Paradigm, the usual Revels, a few Amphions, Monitor Audio, Dali Opticon). To be honest, I think they all sounded very good, so good that I think I would be happy with any of them. I'm not very experienced critical listener but I have studied with Harman's "Learn to listen" when I was more into headphones and I just can't help to not notice when there is something off in a speaker. From all those speakers the B&W was the only one that from the first tunes I thought "huh, this one has a thing".

I chose the KEF (finally the R5, but still) because it didn't have "a thing" at all, maybe it was even the most boring one. I don't need the speakers to give me any special experience or wow effects, that's for the music. Speaker should just do their job and get out of the way. This is of course not the usual approach to hifi but I think it is a good base when giving recommendations to people whose tastes are unknown to you or who aren't really interested in getting emotionally involved with equipment.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

It worked on me, he made it on my ignore list instantly. I just cannot be bothered with meme-lawyers, or with those who obviously missed the basic manners class.

BTW I didn't say (and it's not my opinion) that R3 is a terrible speaker. It's an ok speaker. But I wouldn't recommend it either.

I listened to the R series on two separate occasions - before and after seeing and understanding measurements. For two different rooms. I specifically gave them the extra chance because they measure well. Perhaps I had missed something the first time and I could learn to love them?

What the measurements support:
- they are neutral (fairly flat FR), without excessive roll-off, it feels like the frequencies "are there" (minus the bass, we'll talk about that separately)
- smooth off-axis response - for me this is a feature that one may or may not necessarily want; if you only sit in the MLP, I am not sure it helps that much and it takes away the ability to change the sound by changing the toe-in, so it's very important to like the base sound balance
- all of them, including the R11, need a sub to achieve full range or anything close to it. In fact all KEFs up to Reference 5 suffer from this particular affliction, my guess because KEF uses too small drivers and a lot of tech that in marketing speech makes up for the lack of size and in reality doesn't.

What's outside the measurements: a strange lack of dynamism/energy, sheer inability to convey scale, they simply sound "small" no matter how you move up in the series.

That's why I would never recommend them. These are speakers I listen to, and say "meh".

In fact, the second time around, when I needed speakers for a much smaller room without the treatments etc and I was seriously considering the R7 (yet again, remember the measurements), I ended up with Amphion Heliums, which are also neutral, smooth off-axis etc. but unlike the KEFs, they sound lovely and engaging, to paraphrase @amirm.

You won’t stop peddling your subjective and unfounded nonsense won’t you (eg good Directivity prevents you from adjusting sound by toe in ). It shows a fundamental lack of understanding yet you insist on its correctness.
So why do you even come to a science forum. Plenty of others where your pseudo scientific anecdotes would be appreciated.

Yes you personally don’t like KEF, we get it after a gazzillion of your posts.

 

[bodhi]

I ended up with Amphion Heliums, which are also neutral, smooth off-axis etc. but unlike the KEFs, they sound lovely and engaging, to paraphrase @amirm.

Strange. Here in the homeland of the Amphions the Heliums have always (decades at least) been considered being extremely analytical, a bit thin, treble boosted and lacking any warmth. I think the idea is that the speaker works well in small, concrete rooms.

I know the Helium very well and I can see why one would like it. It's just that I couldn't really recommend it over R3 or even for example Amphions Argon 3S as I think vast majority of people would not prefer it for long term.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Strange. Here in the homeland of the Amphions the Heliums have always (decades at least) been considered being extremely analytical, a bit thin, treble boosted and lacking any warmth. I think the idea is that the speaker works well in small, concrete rooms.

I know the Helium very well and I can see why one would like it. It's just that I couldn't really recommend it over R3 or even for example Amphions Argon 3S as I think vast majority of people would not prefer it for long term.

It’s his personal preference. All good with that.

The trouble is he tries to sell it as universally correct and backs it up with pseudo science.

 

[MattHooper]

You can't trust listening evaluations in Best Buy. You also can't trust evaluations in a treated room in a hifi shop. They are not your listening room at home. Not only that, but if your goal is accuracy, you cannot even trust a listening evaluation in your home. Your ears aren't as accurate as measuring instruments.
OTOH, if your goal is subjectively pleasurable sound, whether accurate or not, then you can trust the listening session in your home. But the listening session at Best Buy is not useful, nor is the listening session in the treated room at the hifi shop.

And I would think "the folks here" would notice that, so that regardless of which speaker sounded "better", they would point out that the protocol was faulty if the goal was accuracy.
If the goal was simply subjectively pleasurable sound, then why post it at ASR?

Performance is objective. Preference is subjective. Use whichever you wish, no problem ....... but it's not helpful to mix them up.


Jim

It’s worth remembering here: Amir and thus most ASR members are evaluating speakers generally using the research cited by Toole et al as identifying how a good sounding speaker will tend to measure.

The goal of the research was indeed to find out what made for “subjectively pleasurable sound.” That’s what it’s all about (insofar as one uses that research as a guide).

Of course it turned out that people tended to generally prefer neutral speakers. But the focus was on what sound people liked not on accuracy per se. If you are using Tooles research as a guide you are using general preferences for subjectively pleasurable sound as your guide and goal.

 

[Benedium]

Maybe what we call accuracy should actually be called accuracy based on average human perception

 

[symphara]

You won’t stop peddling your subjective and unfounded nonsense won’t you (eg good Directivity prevents you from adjusting sound by toe in ). It shows a fundamental lack of understanding yet you insist on its correctness.
So why do you even come to a science forum. Plenty of others where your pseudo scientific anecdotes would be appreciated.

Well unlike you, I'm willing to learn. If your off axis response doesn't change between direct (to MLP) vs parallel speaker orientation, how can you change the sound by changing the toe in of the speakers?

 

[Galliardist]

It’s worth remembering here: Amir and thus most ASR members are evaluating speakers generally using the research cited by Toole et al as identifying how a good sounding speaker will tend to measure.

The goal of the research was indeed to find out what made for “subjectively pleasurable sound.” That’s what it’s all about (insofar as one uses that research as a guide).

Of course it turned out that people tended to generally prefer neutral speakers. But the focus was on what sound people liked not on accuracy per se. If you are using Tooles research as a guide you are using general preferences for subjectively pleasurable sound as your guide and goal.

Hmm... do we get to avoid @preload's question by saying "neutral" though?

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Well unlike you, I'm willing to learn. If your off axis response doesn't change between direct (to MLP) vs parallel speaker orientation, how can you change the sound by changing the toe in of the speakers?

Then do learn please (plenty of resources here and elsewhere) and if you don’t understand come here and ask questions. Nothing wrong with not knowing.

But please refrain from universal statements based on personal preferences, a personal lack of understanding and without a shred of replicable evidence.

Or do whatever you want, I am done as I get the impression we are all feeding your nonsense responses by giving you attention.