Were both speakers measured at the same position?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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
Were both speakers measured at the same position?
I don't understand. This is a measurment of one speaker, still three captures at three distances, same height, same outpout SPL, then averaged.
I did the same process on the same speaker with, then without plug.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2018
- Messages
- 6,223
- Likes
- 9,346
@VintageFlanker , thanks. I never thought to look at the off axis chart the way you are presenting it. I guess if the curves look the same except for an increasing downward slope, that's good. Too bad we can't get the European prices here. The best deal is at accessories4less, $1,000 plus sales tax.
However, I wonder if you will really be better off with the KEF's. Perhaps get sub's if you don't already have them.
However, I wonder if you will really be better off with the KEF's. Perhaps get sub's if you don't already have them.
What I'm asking is if you measured R3 and 906 while they were sitting at the same position in your room?
Btw, nearfield measurement doesn't provide reliable picture of speaker's LF response. It is good from app 900Hz upwards, but I suggest you apply some gating to eliminate reflections.
Yes. For measuring, both have been placed precisely on the exact same stand. Note that the R3 being deeper, it happened to be a bit closer to the rear wall.
I agree. My measurements have no intend to be absolute. I have neither proper instrumentation, nor adequate room to do that. This is an amateurish, relative comparaison that should give some idea of each signature. I found my R3's captures to look similar (on different scales) to @amirm's estimated in room response, especially from 1Khz:
Once you do MMM measurement I expect it to be even more similar to the estimated in-room response measured by Klippel. Except of course in the region below 300-400Hz, but that can be fixed with EQ. Elevated treble can also be easilly fixed.
Btw, how far are the speakers from rear wall?
tuga
Major Contributor
Were you measuring from the listening spot?
How far from the speakers?
If you were measuring from the listening spot then there is a massive difference between the tilt of the Klippel predicted PIR and that of the actual in-room response.
It would be interesting to compare more PIR curves with real-world in-room measurements.
Can't get more than 27cm for the R3. Can go up to 32 for Arias.
Last edited:
That seems just about right. And what is the distance to your LP?
My listening position is centered, a bit short of 3M away. Speakers are 1,90M apart, with no toe-in.
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.
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.
Thanks for sharing! It'd be good to see differences at your LP. Also consider exporting images at a taller scale to better assess difference. I always use 25dB/decade (CTA-2034A), but no biggie.
It's weird that you found the Aria to have more bass than the R3 given you said earlier the R3 clearly has more bass (which matches my impressions and the rated specs too). Perhaps they are coupling to your room differently for some reason?
Note, once again, how your speaker shows a significant dip at 1m that for some reason Amir's R3 unit did not have.
Note that @VintageFlankers measurements were super-nearfield. They are an average of 30, 50, and 100cm.
It is important to note that the PIR is contingent upon distance. It is based on the devantier 2002 paper's assessment of 15 listening rooms, in which the average listening distance was 3.3m. At 1m or less you would of course expect the response to look much closer to the anechoic on-axis measurement.
I've posted this image previously showing how the R3's actual in-room response for a single speakerchanges at 1m vs 2m from measurement position, plotted against against Amir's PIR. You can see the 1m measurement is too bright relative to the PIR, but the 2m is quite close. These aren't averaged, so the bass dips are exacerbated. There is also a measurement done at my LP @ 3m with both speakers firing.
The last one was a spatial average of 7 measurements, however I can't remember the exact method I used (my more recent measurements normally show a wider scoop in the upper bass). Nonetheless, you can see there is a yet greater tilt at 3M, though bass is likely reinforced by stereo and the highs atenuated.
It also occurs to me that it's possible the nearfield measurements at tweeter level are under-representing the R3's bass output @VintageFlanker and @QMuse. 1m is already cutting it close for as tall a speaker as the R3, but the 30 and 50cm measurements will almost certainly under-represent the woofer's output below 400Hz. Combine that with the R3 having a rear port and the aria a front one, and these nearfield captures probably aren't representative of bass performance for the R3. But they should suffice for assessing performance within the UniQ's passband.
So I expect MMM measurements from the LP would better showcase the bass differences, despite the expected peaks and nulls.
Here's my 1m measurements with less smoothing and close to @VintageFlanker's scaling, just to illustrate how flat the tilt is with this distance and perspective. In white is the same exact measurement file copied and gated at 7ms. At 1m, the in-room response has very little tilt. At 30 and 50cm, it would of course have even less, and might tilt a bit in the other direction because of the greater proportional distance to the woofer and port.
So I expect MMM measurements from the LP would better showcase the bass differences, despite the expected peaks and nulls.
Here's my 1m measurements with less smoothing and close to @VintageFlanker's scaling, just to illustrate how flat the tilt is with this distance and perspective. In white is the same exact measurement file copied and gated at 7ms. At 1m, the in-room response has very little tilt. At 30 and 50cm, it would of course have even less, and might tilt a bit in the other direction because of the greater proportional distance to the woofer and port.
Yes, that is what I would expect as well. As I mentioned in one of my posts I would trust them only north of 900Hz if properly gated.
Your measurement at 2m correlates really good with PIR (which is also calculated for listening distance of 2m IIRC). I would expect his will be looking similar but with more tilt at HF.
That wide dip in 750-2500 and peak around 9Khz are easy to fix. Modal things can also be dealt with, but I think his listening position which is 1m longer than distance between the speakers will affect stereo imaging, and EQ can't help that.
@napilopez Do you own R3s? If yes, can you post corrected response measured from LP?
Sure. There's some part with my measurements that do not represent my listening impressions at all: first, sensitivity, I was 100% sure that Aria was more sensitive, while R3 finally output more dB at the same volume.
Same regarding bass: there's almost no doubt, even from a subjective perspective, that the R3 hits harder, deeper and lower during listening.
However, what's interesting comes starting from 1Khz. Whatever the scale, measurements from either @napilopez, @amirm or me all show a similar shape in this area (except the 1Khz deep) As I already know, 906 do present a smooth falling curve from 2-3Khz, while the R3 is more linear/straight (though a bit too elevated) in this region. That is perfectly audible in my listening experience. Ultimately, I'd say the R3 is a more accurate but brighter speaker, while 906 is smoother, more friendly to listen to (from my personal POV, of course)
I do not unfortunately, these are all based on measurements I took last june.
I actually think the difference you're hearing may have has to do with the on-axis tuning. The R3 has a pretty much flat flat slope while Focal speakers almost all have a tilt already built into their on-axis. See soundstage network:
In my home my impressions were a little different =] From my listening notes, it seems I thought the Chora 806 (which measures very similar to the Aria 906) was more neutral than the R3, which I thought was very close to neutral but had slightly recessed voices. That same recession may be why you're hearing it as a bit bright. Of course, I'm talking mainly based on memory and some notepad scribbles on my listening impressions, not even a direct comparison, so my impressions are worth little =]
PIR I believe is referenced to 3.3m-ish, as that's what was determined to be the average listening distance in the devantier paper.
Anyway, the R3 is certainly EQable. I actually did try to EQ the R3 when I had them. Equing the 1K dip basically fixed the slightly recessed mids for me. I tried EQing the treble a bit but did not like it. Unlike VintageFlanker I actually thought the R3 was a little more laid back than I liked so cutting the treble didn't help. Also keep in mind that 2m measurement is in a part of my home with basically no absorptive surfaces. From the LP there'd definitely be more treble attenuation.
As a side note, that's Amir's PIR. Because of either sample or measurement difference, that pesky difference at 1K comes up again. When I calculated my own PIR, it matched my 2m measurement even more closely throughout the mids:
Of course, it shouldn't be surprise that an average of my own measurements its closer to my own measurements
Last edited:
Speaking of PIR - Estimated in-room response packed into this zip seems to be the wrong one. As I couldn't find the right PIR I draw a 10dB line over the ER (as PIR should be close to that one), and here's how it looks:
EDIT: my mistake, I loaded wrong PIR.
So, it looks like, beside that dip around 1.5kHz there is a wide area centered around 6K that may need to be slightly lowered but I can hardly imagine it being problematic.
Attachments
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2019
- Messages
- 3,688
- Likes
- 4,069
Perhaps it's your room that is too lively? You could try a descending slope.
tuga
Major Contributor
The same thing happened when I measured my speakers at 1m the other day, the bass rolls-off at around 100Hz instead of at the port resonance around 40Hz:
tecnogadget
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Could the bass roll off be contributed to the measurement or listening position being located in a bass null ??
In a lot of room ratios the center of the room, horizontally equidistant relative to speakers, coincides with room null.
Maybe off axis or a little bit further/closer to speaker yields to improved roll off...uff I got to find the time for a serious MMM afternoon and corroborate a few of the latest hot topics.
In a lot of room ratios the center of the room, horizontally equidistant relative to speakers, coincides with room null.
Maybe off axis or a little bit further/closer to speaker yields to improved roll off...uff I got to find the time for a serious MMM afternoon and corroborate a few of the latest hot topics.
Similar threads
