Has someone in this thread, or anywhere else, ever bothered to place a microphone at the port exit, perform a near field measurement, and evaluate frequency response and decay charts, to verify KEF's flexible port resonance absorption claims?
-
Welcome to ASR. 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 Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I don't see nearfield measurements for this particular KEF model, but they've been done for other KEF models (here, at Erin's Audio Corner, and at Stereophile).
Port resonances are usually several hundred Hz to 1-2kHz. With a three way speaker such as this one, port pipe resonances generally aren't as big of an issue as they can be with two-way speakers, because the woofer/port system is lowpass filtered such that content that might otherwise trigger a resonance is not even getting to the woofer/port.
With two-way speakers, where the woofer/port gets content up to around 2kHz, it can be a bigger issue.
So take a look at the KEF LS50 meta measurements here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-ls50-meta-review-speaker.25574/
Or here, from Stereophile/John Atkinson:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements
Port resonances seem pretty well controlled.
But there are many other speakers that don't use KEF's technology but still have well-controlled port resonances. So there's more than one way to attack the problem.
Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Resonance peaks are down ~15-20 dB from the tuning (fb) peak for these two speakers, which, I agree, is a good value.
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
I believe KEF has published at least one white paper on their port technology. I will see if I can find it.
Part of it is included in this paper: https://assets.kef.com/documents/reference/REF_White_Paper_preview_path_200514.pdf
Part of it is included in this paper: https://assets.kef.com/documents/reference/REF_White_Paper_preview_path_200514.pdf
beagleman
Major Contributor
Hmmm......just read this review yet again, and was ready to pounce on some used R3s, but now not sure after the subjective part.....Yet.....
Erin seems to like them a fair degree, and several owners seem to love them.
Erin seems to like them a fair degree, and several owners seem to love them.
Digital_Thor
Addicted to Fun and Learning
IMO they are great... But you should consider room size, listening position and EQ capabilities of your system.
They play bass, but it's still a small speaker, besides remember to point them straight ahead, so you listen to them a little off-axis.
They play bass, but it's still a small speaker, besides remember to point them straight ahead, so you listen to them a little off-axis.
Fahzz
Addicted to Fun and Learning
How much are they? I like mine a lot.
diddley
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I am very satisfied with my R3's they play well balanced with good enough bass. for example Massive Attack safe from harm
Last edited:
westsail42
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2025
- Messages
- 44
- Likes
- 25
I have had my R3 Metas for about two months now. Compared to the vintage B&W DM100s they replaced, the R3s are much better in the mids (as you might expect for a 3-way speaker over a 2-way).
The bass tonality/detail is good but you are not going to "feel" it (even slightly). For that you will need a sub of course.
Mine are powered by an NAD C3050 with a line-level subwoofer, crossover set at 140Hz. Dirac computed a pretty good sounding filter, with bass where you can just feel the kick drum from the sub (no I am not thumping it).
The bass tonality/detail is good but you are not going to "feel" it (even slightly). For that you will need a sub of course.
Mine are powered by an NAD C3050 with a line-level subwoofer, crossover set at 140Hz. Dirac computed a pretty good sounding filter, with bass where you can just feel the kick drum from the sub (no I am not thumping it).
Remember to not put them directly on axis. 15° to 35° offset is mostly ideal and has many benefits for linearity and "roomiesness" of the sound. Placing them just parallel is also an option (no toe it). In fact, for KEF UniQ Speakers I even think it's essential.
I think to have real bass with ANY bookshelf (and many full range) you need a sub.
The limitation isn't only on the woofer / cabinet dimensions but also on the impedance / amplifier power / relationship.
Even your speaker can go under 40hz, it doesn't mean your amp can deliver the needed amount of power (or dBs at your seat position) to "feel" that bass.
Since many years i started to use 2.1 configuration in the system and there's no going back. It needs some homework and hassle (positioning / crossover / delays)? Oh yes.
The reward is real and clean bass.
The limitation isn't only on the woofer / cabinet dimensions but also on the impedance / amplifier power / relationship.
Even your speaker can go under 40hz, it doesn't mean your amp can deliver the needed amount of power (or dBs at your seat position) to "feel" that bass.
Since many years i started to use 2.1 configuration in the system and there's no going back. It needs some homework and hassle (positioning / crossover / delays)? Oh yes.
The reward is real and clean bass.
@anphex what did you replace your reference 3 with? Saw your ad on eBay and seems it’s sold already
what did you dislike with the kefs so much that you sold them just within months after buying them?
@anphex what did you replace your reference 3 with? Saw your ad on eBay and seems it’s sold already
Lol this was just me testing the waters. I wouldn't have sold it anyway, I just wanted to see how people would treat the price since it's retailing for 15k instead of 13,5k currently. The KEF Reference 3 Meta will stay. Just to bei replaced by blades if I hit the lottery, but the jump from Reference to Blade is not as drastic. And remember I just got the Ref 3 Meta in a sway of faith. There was luck, bad luck and then luck again involved.
Still, these are incredible speakers. If I had to choose right now again, I might consider the MoFI 888. Their price is a hard competition. Edit: Though the wigglyness in the FR that still sticks around off axis would probaly bother me. No surprise on a crossover that goes up to 2,8 Khz with this huge mid woofer.
Last edited:
beagleman
Major Contributor
They are asking $1,150 right now, but sure I can get tham a bit lower
staticV3
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 12,718
- Likes
- 21,228
Also consider the Concerto Meta: https://www.crutchfield.com/p_991QCRTMBK/KEF-Q-Concerto-Meta-Satin-Black.html?cc=02&tp=186
Very similar design to the R3 Meta, with better dynamic range but slightly worse THD/MD: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_concerto_q_meta/
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
- Messages
- 663
- Likes
- 1,655
Also difference is that the R3 and R3 Meta can sit closer to the back wall without issues. Judging by the frequency response, the KEF Concerto might sound a bit boomy or bass-heavy if you place it in the same spot.
I never had any issues listening to R3 (non-meta) on axis. Although, I mainly use them in a 5.1.4. watching movies.
westsail42
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2025
- Messages
- 44
- Likes
- 25
And KEF includes bungs for the rear port. Pretty much needed if units are placed against a wall (my case).
nathan
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- May 24, 2020
- Messages
- 505
- Likes
- 374
Remember much of the subjective part was disappointed by a room mode that was later corrected (but the comments were not revised). These are excellent speakers.
I'm notoriously cheap... I'd seriously be tempted at anything around $1000...if you're comfortable dropping $1150 it's a fair deal...
Is it because they don't use ferrofluid?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
