KEF R3 Speaker Review

[amirm]

Is the Klippel system able to measure individual drivers and port ??

If one driver can be separated from the rest, sure. With the port, that is not possible of course. If all people are doing is sticking a mic at the port and running the sweep, I can do that as well.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Quoted from the KEF R&D R Series 2018 Whitepaper
...

When the ports are optimally placed and the wadding
added, the resonances are greatly depressed and cannot be
detected in the overall response."
...
Is the Klippel system able to measure individual drivers and port ??

Interesting find. I noticed they placed the port asymetrically on a number of their speaker lines, but not all (ex. Q series), and not always in the same shape or relative placement (ex. LS50). Within a line they appear to place the ports in the same general area; for the R line that's maybe about 1/3rd of the way in.

KEF R11 Rear:

 

[ROOSKIE]

If, at age 78, I survive the Corona Virus pandemic, I will buy that MiniDSP OpenDRC-DI and have four EQ curves available at the touch of a button. ASR has really convinced me that starting with at least 320kbps audio files, a transparent electronics chain, and a good, flat-measuring pair of loudspeakers - and using DSP fo fine-tune to my "sonic preference of the day" - is the best path to audio happiness.

I pray that you (&many,many others) do indeed survive. At 78 you have earned some more listening time here on Earth. Thrive friend!

 

[Absolute]

In my eyes the frequency response tells us all we need to know. That recessed area between 1-2 khz followed by a broad rise will not go by unnoticed by any listener. My main complaint against Kef speakers have traditionally been that they lack a certain life or sparkle to be perceived as realistic as some others, not necessarily because they sound bright or forward.

If we factor in the traditional stereo-dip in the same area between 1-2 khz, I believe we have a strong candidate for a possible explanation for the somewhat lackluster feedback. If this is the case, it's easy to eyeball the spinorama and see where it fails from an objective standpoint.

Thankfully it's dead easy to correct for unless you're one of those dinosaurs without a simple dsp-capable sound chain

Excellent engineering in these speakers, I'd be happy to own them.

 

[Xulonn]

Thankfully it's dead easy to correct for unless you're one of those dinosaurs without a simple dsp-capable sound chain

Watch who you call a dinosaur, dude!

Actually, I'm holding out for the better-quality, more expensive all digital miniDSP OpenDRC-DI box for $325 - vs. the $205 miniDSP 2x4 HD with its internal DAC that does the ADC-DSP-DAC conversion. That way, I can still use my Topping DX7s DAC instead of being locked into the not-SOTA one in the 2x4 HD.

 

[Deleted member 65]

Started off my KEF journey same as @Frank Dernie , ready made baffles with KEF T27 tweeter, B110 mid and B139 bass units already installled & XO. Just needed to build the boxes, loved them at the time, especially the B139.

Many years later came the first KEF coax into my modest setup (just after uni), the KEF iQ30 standmount. Never involved me musically, a bit lifeless without body I’d say in retrospective.

Again many years later, reading glowing reviews of the then new KEF XQ40 floorstander. A bit better off now since graduating from uni, so bought them in the light of my first positive KEF experience. Boy was I wrong, should have remembered my KEF iQ experience. Dull, harsh & lifeless would be my subjective verdict.

Moved on to Evolution Acoustics MicroOne & Gauder Akustik in my two setups.

 

[maty]

KEF iQ30 -> 6.5" coaxial

KEF XQ40 -> 6.5" coaxial

 

[Deleted member 65]

KEF iQ30 -> 6.5" coaxial

KEF XQ40 -> 6.5" coaxial

So it was just an expensive sideways move from my part into same dull, lifeless, harsh musical experience ... ;-) When will I learn ...

 

[Xulonn]

So it was just an expensive sideways move from my part into same dull, lifeless, harsh musical experience ... ;-) When will I learn ...

Lars, thanks for sharing an example of how even intelligent, educated people can succumb to overpowering and persistent biases. Been there, done that, as they say in the U.S.

 

[tecnogadget]

In my eyes the frequency response tells us all we need to know. That recessed area between 1-2 khz followed by a broad rise will not go by unnoticed by any listener.

Here is an anecdotical story...

I haven't officially set up my R3's and R2C, first I need to change the main Tv furniture and make some space, room modifications + acoustic treatment and buy more pieces of gear. So I'm using the R3 as a stereo pair for casual listening and really love it.

The thing is that when I did unbox the R2C for testing and playing I remember placing it alone in the furniture and playing Dire Straits "Your Latest Trick" from Brothers In Arms SACD...R2C was the only speaker connected to AVR and I set it to play the same music through all the channels (no upmixing, no Dolby Pro Logic involved)...so I remember how struck and involved I felt with the music, especially with the realism and coherence of Mark Knopfler's voice, and the Saxo, it was wonderful. Mind I was listening to only 1 speaker with a coaxial driver, getting away from possible Stereo cancelations.
Then some weeks later came to my mind to listen to the same track but with the stereo pair, and even though I did and do enjoy them, it was not quite as spectacular as that first impression with the R2C alone. *Remember I'm talking about just a casual and anecdotical impression, not a serious review.

@Absolute Your post and other member's comments made me remember this so I dig into the official spinoramas.

This could explain much of what has happened here in the thread ??
If a speaker gets to end up with an In-Room response curve that represents a broad rise after a 1k-2k depression can be perceived as a little bit anemic and bright (R3). And if it gets some rise up in the presence region like 1k to 3k or has some step hard knee in the sub-bass/bass region you get the sense of fuller body, more pleasing tone, less fatigue (M16, R2C). I dunno, but this is something that could correlate.

 

[stevenswall]

Probaly they wired a single poweramp to coxial terminals and set switches there on the back to biwiring, means exactly it does not quite integrate the additional woofer with the coaxial

So the wires go from the back to the coaxial driver, and then from the coaxial driver to the other terminals that then connect to the woofers? Can't really understand what you're saying.

My understanding is that there are 4 posts on the back. Two go to a simple crossover for the tweeter/midrange, and two go to the woofer. You can power them separately, or together, in which case the woofer is getting the same signal the coaxial does, filtered by a crossover.

 

[TimVG]

@tecnogadget I don't find that very likely. I believe @ctrl 's post here is on point.

 

[echopraxia]

You know generally I do not really get to know a speaker until several hours have passed on multiple days. My hearing is not the same everyday and what I prefer sonic-ally changes somewhat when excited, tired, energized, meditative.
I also tend to like exciting speakers or forward sounding speakers for a few tracks and then over time grow tired of their character. Other changes like that take place.
I also really like to change the volume and listen at different volumes and especially listen to different types of music at different levels.
Additionally and this is big, I challenge a test if it was only done when the speakers are "level matched" because that is not generally possible. Additionally, I find I must be able to fine tune the volume between speakers to get a perceived volume match and even then there is no reason the speakers have to be playing at exactly the same volume. That is utter nonsense because what is most important is that the speaker is playing at level that sounds best for that track on that speaker for me. I need to be able to adjust volume to match my senses. In any case over time the speaker I prefer reveals itself to me. Sometimes this is not quite what I would have bet on.

I appreciate any and all testing that you have done, really I do very much, but a blind test with 2 people and 2 speakers is a tough one to promote as very telling. (it is interesting though) I would get much more out of a subjective review you wrote yourself based on several weeks of using both speakers. Time can be a real truth teller just like a blind fold.

Keep doing these tests and maybe a pattern will appear. I'd really like to see some of these type of tests with some very well "trained/experienced" listeners.
Blind testing is really hard. (and unlike double blind, still leaves all sorts of room for bias affecting the outcome) You might drop the sub-woofer out as that creates all sorts of complexity for inequality. (despite doing it to equalize the test, I am suggesting it made it less accurate) Additionally you must know your tracks and chose very wisely, perhaps in the beginning picking only recordings of the highest standard. Otherwise it will be very difficult to account for the difference between a speaker revealing poorly recorded material and a speaker not sounding good of its own accord.

It's clear that you've read nothing of my actual blind test results write-up, because virtually every one of your suggestions for improvement are things I've already done (living with the speakers for a week or two, specific song lists, comparisons with and without subwoofer, etc.) and written about extensively as supplementary posts in the blind test threads here and/or on AVSForum. I don't blame you (there's more content online than any one of us can ever read), and I appreciate your ideas, just know that writing a pragraph or two of critique and feedback (of the results of hours of someone's tedious work) will generally be best received if you actually read the write-ups of the work that you are critiquing

Lastly, I do understand that blind tests won't be very useful with such a relatively small sample size. But the way to solve that is for you, me, and others to do blind tests and post the results -- not to just cite the lack of data without doing anything about it.

 

[echopraxia]

I can't understand how this doubt has gone out of proportion.
On the one hand, we religiously pursue objective results through measurement and scientific method without forgiveness.
But then more credit has been given to a couple of subjective opinions.

In this particular case, I can understand that another speaker might be better or might like it more than the one that has been analyzed. But I find it hard to believe that the difference between the A, B and C speakers that have been discussed constitutes a difference from day to night, validating that the one analyzed is basically not worth it.

Let's be serious. The measurements perform. Pretty much all over different forums, every user has been in love with the previous generation as for the current. The specialized press loves it too (not that this matters a lot since they are being paid for). Still, there is a general consensus towards sounding great and measurements correlates.

It's very important to note that while the measurements themselves are objective, our interpretation of them towards speaker preference is only as good as the models we use. There is growing evidence that those models aren't perfect, which is not surprising -- few psycho[anything] models are perfect. It is good and scientifically sound that we are discussing potential ways in which the preference score models may need adjustment to better reflect reality. Unfortunately, we do lack the significant sample sizes of blind tests that should be done for such adjustments to be made confidently and rigorously.

However, Amir's contribution of the objective data of a wide range of speakers will help a great deal, if only because it might permit us to find anomalies where the preference score seems to be the reverse of reality (i.e. which speakers most people actually prefer). Maybe we've found some examples of that already, maybe not -- but it's almost guaranteed that we will if enough speakers are tested, unless the preference score model is literally perfect, which is extraordinarily unlikely.

 

[ROOSKIE]

It's clear that you've read nothing of my actual blind test results write-up, because virtually every one of your suggestions for improvement are things I've already done (living with the speakers for a week or two, specific song lists, comparisons with and without subwoofer, etc.) and written about extensively as supplementary posts in the blind test threads here and/or on AVSForum. I don't blame you (there's more content online than any one of us can ever read), and I appreciate your ideas, just know that writing a pragraph or two of critique and feedback (of the results of hours of someone's tedious work) will generally be best received if you actually read the write-ups of the work that you are critiquing

Lastly, I do understand that blind tests won't be very useful with such a relatively small sample size. But the way to solve that is for you, me, and others to do blind tests and post the results -- not to just cite the lack of data without doing anything about it.

Unfortunately many times ones hundreds of hours of work boil down to a short interaction. This will happen often.
I do not want to discourage you. Please don't take it personally.
I read your original post on AVS and your posts on this thread.
My comment was based on that amount of reading. They still hold 100%, and keep in mind I am writing for the additional people who find themselves reading this thread even though some of what I said you have indeed already touched upon. I am also not just discussing your test but essentially the very idea of chosing a speaker quickly in a short session.

Anyway my main point is that short listening experiences with a brief rating (whether blind or sighted) is not really a realistic situation.
For example IMHO-
Listeners should be able to swap back and forth from speaker to speaker at will, chang volume at will, play tracks multiple times and even listen to tracks they are familiar with. Otherwise honestly it is just such a small sample of data. While certainly interesting it should not be allowed to be discussed as if there was more to it. - which is happening here.
I would live to help set up more tests. I wish I was in Seattle with you all. Hopefully we can collaborate in person and if not let's all share info and ideas. All my writing is just my ideas. Take some & leave some. Right now I am essentially doing something by discussing.
Best to you as you test further.

 

[maty]

...If a speaker gets to end up with an In-Room response curve that represents a broad rise after a 1k-2k depression can be perceived as a little bit anemic and bright (R3). And if it gets some rise up in the presence region like 1k to 3k or has some step hard knee in the sub-bass/bass region you get the sense of fuller body, more pleasing tone, less fatigue (M16, R2C). I dunno, but this is something that could correlate.

Very easy to solve with a computer, as me with my modded KEF Q100.

As well as more bass.

The important thing is that the spinorama is very good, which makes it easy for a reasonable equalization to be really effective without affecting the room as much as with other speakers. It is much better so having a very flat frequency response on-axis but with a much worse spinorama, I think. Especially if the recordings are with real instrumentation and with unadulterated voices.

 

[Ron Texas]

I believe some of what appears to be a disconnect between the excellent measurements of the R3 and our host's preference for the M16 which has very good measurements but noticeably below the R3 is we are looking at the preference on one person. The research has shown if a group of people blind tested these two speakers more would prefer the R3 to the M16. Of course, it would not be every single listener in the test.

 

[CtheArgie]

@amirm , thanks for the response and for the great music! I only knew one piece. But, even though the Transumanza piece did not have the bandoneon, as an Argie, I will always have a fond heart for that difficult to record instrument.

 

[Deleted member 65]

I believe some of what appears to be a disconnect between the excellent measurements of the R3 and our host's preference for the M16 which has very good measurements but noticeably below the R3 is we are looking at the preference on one person. The research has shown if a group of people blind tested these two speakers more would prefer the R3 to the M16. Of course, it would not be every single listener in the test.

Not sure how you come to this conclusion, having experience of KEF coax speakers my experience more or less reflects @amirm ’s.

I expect that we @ASR as we gain more experience will become the research setting the standard, we are the future in audio I strongly believe.

 

[maty]

Time ago I found the crossover of the previous model, R300. Quite disappointing (for the range price) the components quality. Presumably R3 will be similar.

KEF R300 crossover, pictures by Zvu

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...und-measurements-raw-drivers-post5520105.html

KEF R300, inside

https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mul...und-measurements-raw-drivers-post5590785.html