KEF R3 Speaker Review

[QMuse]

Yeahh thats exactly what I meant to do, I already started to practice during the lockdown. I meant about the boom in order to make sweeps following the dirac couch pattern and then average them. Better have results of the 2 measurements techniques than 1 don't you think ?
The sweeps I made were fixing the Umik provided little stand fixed to the couch, not very easy to change position other than main listening position this way...

Frankly, for in-room measurements I find sine sweeps good for only 2 things:

- you can do nearfield gated measurements with them to check response north of 1kHz. (be carefull with that as measurements from various close distances may vary due to varios reasons!)

- you can do sweep from LP to mannualy correct phase response

And that's about it. For everthing else, just use MMM RTA with pink noise.

 

[napilopez]

napilopez As for that infamous 1khz dip that shows on third party measurements but not on Klippel I'm starting to suspect about the protruding Shadow Flare ring...
I'm having replaced my R3's and R2C because of cosmetical issues on the lacker, KEF was very supportive of my case and provided excellent customer service. I hope the new units are cherry-picked from the factory and newer batch (mine were from the first manufactured breeds of September 2018). If this units have the Shadow Flare perfectly flush relative to the cabinet and 1khz does not show up maybe its case closed.

Yes, I previously speculated about the shadow ring flare as well. That or perhaps a small reflection off the woofer's trim ring.

 

[tecnogadget]

Frankly, for in-room measurements I find sine sweeps good for only 2 things:

- you can do nearfield gated measurements with them to check response north of 1kHz. (be carefull with that as measurements from various close distances may vary due to varios reasons!)

- you can do sweep from LP to mannualy correct phase response

And that's about it. For everthing else, just use MMM RTA with pink noise.

I wish miniDSP or even REW communicated better about measurement techniques. They NEVER addressed MMM in any place. There is even a REW 101 guide quite lengthy PDF made by community users and also skips any MMM literature. I’ve been into this for more than a decade, did subwoofer RoomEq with Behringer Feedback destroyer, and it wasn’t up until a few months that I discovered this thanks to you and the forum.

This deserves a separate unified thread all related to measurement techniques and demystify some practices as there is so much contradicted and scattered information around there.
This is the most "complete" paper I've found but not sure if its right or wrong.

 

[Soniclife]

I wish miniDSP or even REW communicated better about measurement techniques. They NEVER addressed MMM in any place. There is even a REW 101 guide quite lengthy PDF made by community users and also skips any MMM literature. I’ve been into this for more than a decade, did subwoofer RoomEq with Behringer Feedback destroyer, and it wasn’t up until a few months that I discovered this thanks to you and the forum.

This deserves a separate unified thread all related to measurement techniques and demystify some practices as there is so much contradicted and scattered information around there.
This is the most "complete" paper I've found but not sure if its right or wrong.

See...
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/rew-moving-microphone-method-help.12641/

 

[Jon AA]

Well sure, it is what it is. But R3 is still a speaker with very smooth directivity and EQ will fix the tonal balance better than radical toe-in you suggested.

Of course--nobody does radical toe-in to change the tonal balance. That's not what it's for. Yes, there can be a tonal balance change as a side effect, but it will actually be pretty minimal (as you have noted) with these speakers.

 

[richard12511]

Of course--nobody does radical toe-in to change the tonal balance. That's not what it's for. Yes, there can be a tonal balance change as a side effect, but it will actually be pretty minimal (as you have noted) with these speakers.

Thinking about this. For someone designing narrow dispersion speakers for extreme toe in, would it make sense to design them to be too bright on axis?

 

[Jon AA]

So it sounds the optimal midrange HT setup (just based on scores but with decent looks) could be R3's for L/R (and presumably R2C for centre), and then M16's for surrounds. If you stick to black speakers then they may not be so obviously mismatched either

Certainly that wouldn't be a bad setup, but it may not be necessary depending upon your layout. My opinion is that the R3's are in a good "sweet spot" of directivity for all around use in a multichannel system. Personally I'm going for ~90 degrees horizontal dispersion all around--a little wider than necessary for the LCR but that certainly won't hurt anything, and wide enough for surrounds provided you aren't too close to them. While I don't think the vertical dispersion is needed for the LCR, it can be an advantage for surrounds as you can mount them a foot or two above ear height and still get a good response (without having to angle them downward).

 

[Jon AA]

Thinking about this. For someone designing narrow dispersion speakers for extreme toe in, would it make sense to design them to be too bright on axis?

Personally, I think that's the wrong approach. A good speaker with very constant directivity, even if fairly narrow, should still be pretty flat at the sweet spot as you're still well within the listening window.

The bigger problem comes from speakers with very non-constant directivity (like the RP-600M I used as an example earlier in the thread). With that speaker, the tonal balance will change at the sweet spot quite a bit with any change in toe. And for those sitting off-axis, they get a significantly different balance from the left and right speakers.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Just to clarify, folks: Appart from the "boomy" bass (Which is now fixed with bassports), there's probably nothing wrong with how R3s objectively sound. My comparaison was directly against the 906, which I listen everyday in the same room.

Then, I just have the R3 for few hours, so let's see what's happen in a couple of days... (That isn't burn-in I have in mind, but little ajustements and time to get used to it)

The Arias were at start backup speakers, considering their "low" price. I needed them for the time I had to move and sell my floorstandings. Surprisingly, the 906s became much more than "backup-meanwhile" speakers. Since I loved just every music played through them during the last months. I will soon move again and put my system in a slightly bigger room. I was thinking about geting some new standmounts (and floorstanders at the end). Don't ask me why, I just want to buy new speakers every two years or so, for no reason but trying new things. I'm not necessarily looking for "upgrade" but for something different I would also like. On my short list were Kef R3s, Buchardt S400s and Dynaudio Evoke 20s. Two have been measured here, and the R3 was purchased only based on its measurments.

Then, please understand: I know myself and I don't want to put too much efforts trying to make these speakers sounding like I would they do. If they don't, that's not a big deal: I won't keep them, period. Most surprising thing here is how I seem to like the 906s above the R3. Would be curious to see soon the datas from @amirm to understand why or where my preferences are.

Will update my impressions soon anyway...

Thinking about this. For someone designing narrow dispersion speakers for extreme toe in, would it make sense to design them to be too bright on axis?

Not one bit.

 

[tuga]

Just to clarify, folks: Appart from the "boomy" bass (Which is now fixed with bassports), there's probably nothing wrong with how R3s objectively sound. My comparaison was directly against the 906, which I listen everyday in the same room.

Then, I just have the R3 for few hours, so let's see what's happen in a couple of days... (That isn't burn-in I have in mind, but little ajustements and time to get used to it)

The Arias were at start backup speakers, considering their "low" price. I needed them for the time I had to move and sell my floorstandings. Surprisingly, the 906s became much more than "backup-meanwhile" speakers. Since I loved just every music played through them during the last months. I will soon move again and put my system in a slightly bigger room. I was thinking about geting some new standmounts (and floorstanders at the end). Don't ask me why, I just want to buy new speakers every two years or so, for no reason but trying new things. I'm not necessarily looking for "upgrade" but for something different I would also like. On my short list were Kef R3s, Buchardt S400s and Dynaudio Evoke 20s. Two have been measured here, and the R3 was purchased only based on its measurments.

Then, please understand: I know myself and I don't want to put too much efforts trying to make these speakers sounding like I would they do. If they don't, that's not a big deal: I won't keep them, period. Most surprising thing here is how I seem to like the 906s above the R3. Would be curious to see soon the datas from @amirm to understand why or where my preferences are.

Will update my impressions soon anyway...


Not one bit.

The Focals are your reference. Anything different will sound at least different, perhaps worse. Even something better.
Listen to music for a few days, forget soundstage and other special effects for the time being, get acclimatised first. After that time, replace the Kefs with the Focals and you may be surprised.

 

[daftcombo]

The Focals are your reference. Anything different will sound at least different, perhaps worse. Even something better.
Listen to music for a few days, forget soundstage and other special effects for the time being, get acclimatised first. After that time, replace the Kefs with the Focals and you may be surprised.

I went from Epos K3 (1 900 € at the time) to Aria 906 (bought 440 €) and instantly prefered & loved the Aria 906. So it is possible not to wait to like a pair of speakers.

They are just lush. The only issue for me is bass, lacking and incontrolled in my room (I can't put them far enough from the walls). I would defo get subs rather than new speakers right now. I also have a pair at my parent's house, where they sit on a desk far from walls, like monitors. There they shine even more with balanced tonality. There's nlo going back to my previous monitors there.

 

[VintageFlanker]

It don't think it'll need deep investigation to find out Arias are very different speakers (I'd say not worse nor better, but definetly few in common).

Here we go:

Preliminary measurements (Still In-room for now).​

All on-Axis, same height (tweeter axis for R3, fall to ahead of the midbass driver ring for 906s). Average of three near-field captures: 30cm, 50cm, then 1M for both. Tried to adjust at same SPL output, but there's one dB more for the R3 at the end (88.3 vs 89.4). Smoothing 1/24, vertical scale: 40 to 100dB.

At last, predicted SPL adjusted to 88dB.

- Need much more power than Arias (literally 10dB more on my ADI-2 to get about the same SPL)

Looks like I was very wrong about that... Surprsingly, at the exact same output level: (1M, -30dB on ADI-2, -12dB on REW), I got quite the opposite: 49dB SPL vs 59dB for R3.

 

[QMuse]

As 906 showed more bass and not elevated treble it obviously has better tonal balance. Can you pls post MMM measurements from LP?

 

[daftcombo]

Prelimenary measurements (Still In-room for now).

All on-Axis, same height (tweeter axis for R3, fall to ahead of the midbass driver ring for 906s). Average of three near-field captures: 30cm, 50cm, then 1M for both. Tried to adjust at same SPL output, but there's one dB more for the R3 at the end (88.3 vs 89.4). Smoothing 1/24, vertical scale: 40 to 100dB.


View attachment 66252

View attachment 66253

At last, predicted SPL adjusted to 88dB.

View attachment 66254


Looks like I was very wrong about that... Surprsingly, at the exact same output level: (1M, -30dB on ADI-2, -12dB on REW), I got quite the opposite: 49dB SPL vs 59dB for R3.

Try +3 dB, Q= 1, at 100 Hz.

 

[QMuse]

Try +3 dB, Q= 1, at 100 Hz.

You don't do room EQ based on nearfield measurement.

 

[Ron Texas]

Just looking at the measurements, the 906's look nice, although some touch up EQ wouldn't hurt.

https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

I wonder if the 906's have smooth response off axis that the research calls for.

 

[QMuse]

@VintageFlanker , If you manage to make MMM measurements from LP I will be happy to provide EQ filters for R3 that you can upload to Roon.

 

[VintageFlanker]

I wonder if the 906's have smooth response off axis that the research calls for.

As you see from Soundstage, I'd say: yes.

Top curve: 45 degrees off-axis response
Middle curve: 60 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 75 degrees off-axis response


I also did some captures few months back and found very consistent Off-axis response up to 10Khz:

On-axis vs -30°, then -45° off-axis. Off course, both scale and smoothing are way too much, but I lost the original REW file.

 

[richard12511]

Here we go:

Prelimenary measurements (Still In-room for now).​

All on-Axis, same height (tweeter axis for R3, fall to ahead of the midbass driver ring for 906s). Average of three near-field captures: 30cm, 50cm, then 1M for both. Tried to adjust at same SPL output, but there's one dB more for the R3 at the end (88.3 vs 89.4). Smoothing 1/24, vertical scale: 40 to 100dB.

View attachment 66268

View attachment 66253

At last, predicted SPL adjusted to 88dB.

View attachment 66254


Looks like I was very wrong about that... Surprsingly, at the exact same output level: (1M, -30dB on ADI-2, -12dB on REW), I got quite the opposite: 49dB SPL vs 59dB for R3.

Looks bass shy.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Forgot to mention: This is captured with (intermediate) port plugs!

For relative comparaison, I just re-measured: Intermediate port plugs vs without.