KEF R3 Speaker Review

[xhattan]

I would love to see a review on the powered wireless LS50s. Been using the regular passive ones with much joy.

Thanks!

 

[napilopez]

I think we all tend to like what we are used to and find something different "wrong".

This is also true.

It is not the effect I am hearing or scoring on. But obviously that radiation pattern makes a difference with respect to what I hear in the room.

I think directivity sometimes presents itself in more subtle ways than just like the width or breadth of the soundstage. I generally find myself thinking wider directivity speakers are more engaging, even though intuitively I would've expected the opposite (that narrower directivity speakers would sound more engaging because their imaging is "sharper")

Anyway, I think either bass or directivity are the most likely explanations based on the data we've seen so far. Or maybe even just the low q deviations.

As a side note, interestingly enough I think your data looks a bit smoother than KEFs own!

All the other R series measurements I've seen (including my own and NRCs) show two medium sized midrange dips as opposed to just a wide big shallow one on yours. Academically curious as to what might be causing that.

Could just be measurement variation, but I know people have also complained about the waveguide being a bit uneven or loose on some units, wonder if that has anything to do with it.

For reference of what I mean, my measurements vs the klippels:

(the dips are also present in all my in-room measurements too at different distances so don't think it's a quasi-anechoic artefact).

Also present in Hi-Fi News:

Also present in the NRCs of the R11, with presumably the same/similar Uni-Q unit:


If you notice one unit has a "pushed in" waveguide, this could be something to check if you have the time, but I know you're busy =]

 

[laurelkurt]

@amirm , do you plan to measure the second unit for comparison?

I'm all in for that.

 

[Haint]

None of that is possible right now. I need to setup a different space with such controls. My main system is just not setup for this kind of experimentation.

I wonder how difficult it would be for someone with technical/tinkerer know-how to take an off the shelf remote controlled (or IP controlled?) speaker selector (or perhaps multi-zone AVR?) and make an app for say a Samsung phone (with an IR beamer) that could randomly choose (and obscure from you) the playing speaker but allow you to subjectively score them and then give you the result at the end.

 

[Ron Texas]

I would love to see a review on the powered wireless LS50s. Been using the regular passive ones with much joy.

Thanks!

The actives would likely score higher as some of the irregularities in frequency response have been EQ'ed out.

 

[aarons915]

Wow, impressive! This one I was waiting for so long! You guys rock!
I BLINDLY bought a pair of R3 and center R2C without even demo and this review makes me happy. Before this, I did the same with the big center from the previous generation R600.

Any chance at getting your R2c in for measurement?

 

[Koeitje]

This looks very good! All I want to see now is M106's and maybe floorstanders (R5, F35/F36, F206).

 

[Ron Texas]

I wonder how difficult it would be for someone with technical/tinkerer know-how to take an off the shelf remote controlled (or IP controlled?) speaker selector (or perhaps multi-zone AVR?) and make an app for say a Samsung phone (with an IR beamer) that could randomly choose (and obscure from you) the playing speaker but allow you to subjectively score them and then give you the result at the end.

Personally, I don't see much point in putting a lot of effort into subjective reviews. A bunch of listeners could score the speakers and the preferences should line up with the measured scores. After all, that's what Toole and Olive spent decades establishing.

 

[napilopez]

I think regarding subjective reviews, ultimately the best thing we can do is organize an ASR blind test event with a bunch of listeners and some of speakers in different performance brackets and a few top tier models. Subjective and objective all at once =]

I'm a broken record on this, but I'm constantly curious about directivity. From everything Dr. Toole has told us:

1) People generally prefer wider directivity/more sidewall reflections
2) But some people have strong preferences about narrow vs wide

Would be interesting in seeing how this plays out in a blind test, especially for speakers otherwise ranked similarly

 

[maty]

It would be very interesting to have a R3 spinorama measured by Amirm for comparison. 0º-10º-20º-...-90º

In front of KEF R300 with new crossover by Zvu, R3 by napilopez and Q100 by Zvu. And KEF LS50.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-q100-speaker-review.11987/post-347839

 

[Lbstyling]

I find it interesting that Amirm is finding that this speaker sounds 'uninvolving'. After a very respected audio engineer told me he discovered that the coax driver series that KEF use here measures phenomenally well a couple of years ago when the KEF Blade was released, I went to hear a set local to me in a well acoustically treated room.

Awful.

I wish I knew why. I knew they measured very well.

Tried an A/B test against an ATC SCM11. Ha! No comparison. Subjective comments are just that, but........

The KEF sounded dead, boring and lacked any kind of drive some how. Even with the bass EQ'd up, it just didn't sing. Detail seams to be there, but not in the upper mid.

Amirm: I have a sneaky suspicion that if you ran a multi tone test- they will show up that coax is no good. Remember, you subjectively liked the JBL 305......and that has less bass. I know you know there is more to this speaker game

 

[Ron Texas]

*for most people
**according to Sean Olive
***as implemented by MZKM
****depending on your room shape, size, treatment, listening window, and preferences

Clearly, our host likes the M16 better than the R3 even though the R3 scores higher. OK, the M16 measures strong, third best so far, but still there is a gap.

 

[Lbstyling]

Clearly, our host likes the M16 better than the R3 even though the R3 scores higher. OK, the M16 measures strong, third best so far, but still there is a gap.

I have no excuses for the following comment ....but..


That's because the R3 sounds S**t.

I'm guessing, but I have a feeling the coax can play every note perfectly. so measures well on a sweep. It just cannot play all the notes at the same time .(multi tone test)

 

[Thomas savage]

We don't need self-indulgent subjective rhetoric, if we could organise blind listening and create some meaningful data out of it that would be ace.

Value Vs effort I'm not sure it's worth it , not on the scale we could manage.

 

[HammerSandwich]

@amirm, the distortion test states that 86 + 11 = 105 (sensitivity + 10/2.8Vrms). What did I miss?

 

[pma]

@amirm, the distortion test states that 86 + 11 = 105 (sensitivity + 10/2.8Vrms). What did I miss?

You are absolutely correct. If the SPL was 86dB at 2.83V, then it was 97dB at 10V.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Clearly, our host likes the M16 better than the R3 even though the R3 scores higher. OK, the M16 measures strong, third best so far, but still there is a gap.

KEF R3 is -3 dB @ 65 Hz and has a bump in the treble on a mostly flat FR graph.
Revel M16 is -3 dB @ 60 Hz and has a bump in the bass and slightly rolled-off treble on a mostly flat FR graph.

Maybe just a preference for warmth / bass emphasis which Amir mentions as a possibility in his impressions.

 

[napilopez]

I have no excuses for the following comment ....but..


That's because the R3 sounds S**t.

I'm guessing, but I have a feeling the coax can play every note perfectly. so measures well on a sweep. It just cannot play all the notes at the same time .(multi tone test)

No need to further denigrate the speaker(EDIT: didn't see your qualifying sentence before it. Still though , seems like an exageration). Plenty of people would disagree with you and Amir, and their subjective evaluations are just as valid. I personally think it's among the top 5 speakers I heard last year out of a couple of dozen.

I think it's pretty silly to think KEF hasn't figured out how to deal with multi-tone signals, but by all means, I'd love to see what the data turned up. I'm 99 percent confident the difference can be traced back to directivity and frequency response though.

 

[MZKM]

I find it interesting that Amirm is finding that this speaker sounds 'uninvolving'. After a very respected audio engineer told me he discovered that the coax driver series that KEF use here measures phenomenally well a couple of years ago when the KEF Blade was released, I went to hear a set local to me in a well acoustically treated room.

Awful.

I wish I knew why. I knew they measured very well.

Tried an A/B test against an ATC SCM11. Ha! No comparison. Subjective comments are just that, but........

The KEF sounded dead, boring and lacked any kind of drive some how. Even with the bass EQ'd up, it just didn't sing. Detail seams to be there, but not in the upper mid.

Amirm: I have a sneaky suspicion that if you ran a multi tone test- they will show up that coax is no good. Remember, you subjectively liked the JBL 305......and that has less bass. I know you know there is more to this speaker game

The ATC SCM11 measures pretty well, so no clue what you are talking about:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/atc-scm-11-loudspeaker-measurements

 

[QMuse]

KEF R3 is -3 dB @ 65 Hz and has a bump in the treble on a mostly flat FR graph.
Revel M16 is -3 dB @ 60 Hz and has a bump in the bass and slightly rolled-off treble on a mostly flat FR graph.

Maybe just a preference for warmth / bass emphasis which Amir mentions as a possibility in his impressions.

On axis, R3 (red) vs M16 (blue). As you can see R3 is much more linear.