KEF R3 Speaker Review

[napilopez]

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.

Unlikely, as both speakers were measured from the same position. But yes certainly positioning affects things, as is happening in my measurements shared earlier at different positions

 

[QMuse]

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 would be very much interested hearing your listening impressions after you apply attached filter in Roon. (change extension from .txt to .wav before doing that). If you are not familiar with how to apply filter in Roon I'm sure @amirm will be happy to asist.

It should provide smooth curve that is gently falling, as shown in these simulated responses:

 

[daftcombo]

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.

That impression of yours reminds me of this remark in an ELAC B5 review on Noaudiophile :

" The B5 speakers do not get loud... they just don't put out enough sound in 4k-8k range to trigger that sensation of loud. I pulled out the SPL meter and was putting out 97dB of music on the couch and it felt more like a small breeze instead of the hurricane of sound I would normally get at 97dB. "

Source: http://noaudiophile.com/ELAC_B5/

The R3 is hotter in that range than the Aria 906 indeed.

 

[tuga]

That impression of yours reminds me of this remark in an ELAC B5 review on Noaudiophile :

" The B5 speakers do not get loud... they just don't put out enough sound in 4k-8k range to trigger that sensation of loud. I pulled out the SPL meter and was putting out 97dB of music on the couch and it felt more like a small breeze instead of the hurricane of sound I would normally get at 97dB. "

Source: http://noaudiophile.com/ELAC_B5/

Distortion is another source of apparent loudness.

 

[daftcombo]

Distortion is another source of apparent loudness.

True but in the present situation I don't think it has to do with it.

 

[VintageFlanker]

I would be very much interested hearing your listening impressions after you apply attached filter in Roon. (change extension from .txt to .wav before doing that). If you are not familiar with how to apply filter in Roon I'm sure @amirm will be happy to asist.

It should provide smooth curve that is gently falling, as shown in these simulated responses:

View attachment 66347

Thanks . Will try that. However, I'll keep going with R3s unEQued for now. I could also tweak the FR through my ADI-2 but I don't want to at the time. That's not how I evaluate new speakers usually. Every speakers would need some EQ/room correction, but I see no point to EQ 1600€ speakers intending to make them sound like 500€ ones I already have (and like). This makes no sense to me. In addition, EQ won't fix the narrow spreading/soundstage I believe to hear.

R3s are running for about 40H now. If there's any burn-in to believe in, that shouldn't be an issue anymore. However, I was listening during one hour or two this afternoon and most of my subjective impressions remain:

- Very deep bass, probably the deepest I've ever heard from any standmounts (first 3-way ones I tried, tho)
- Focused imaging, with very huge scale at the center image. Plenty of details in it. A certain sense of deepness in the sweet spot.
- May sound slightly bright with some recordings. Not enough to turn harsh or fatiguing. Not an issue for me. But my personal preferences are going for smoothness.
- Soundstage is a very weird part. As I said, center imaging looks like a strong point, but in the same time, I hear a very left/right presentation, with some instruments being easily locatable right on the speakers. Sound don't fade out around speakers like I'm used to with Arias. I'd say Arias sound like a wide 2D wall, and the R3 like a 3D corridor (Sorry for the lack of English vocabulary to describe it). I prefer the "2D wall".
- Still thinking the low-mid sound thin, with somewhat recessed vocals and a perceived lack of "body".
- Still thinking the overall presentation is very accurate, with literally no flaw from a technical standpoint... but yet remains boring all the same.

 

[daftcombo]

In addition, EQ won't fix the narrow spreading/soundstage I believe to hear.

I am not sure of that. I think some bass boost can improve soundstage. Can you try +3dB Q=1 at 100Hz for just a few minutes in the RME to be sure?

 

[daftcombo]

View attachment 66400
Well... these were very unpleasant minutes!Boomy as hell.

You used a High Shelf instead of Peak.

Use band 2 of the RME.

 

[VintageFlanker]

You used a High Shelf instead of Peak.

Use band 2 of the RME.

Looks like I'm getting tired and need for a walk
Here you go:

Not "boomy as hell" but still boomy for sure. Anyway, I'm going out for a bike ride, need some air.

 

[napilopez]

Thanks . Will try that. However, I'll keep going with R3s unEQued for now. I could also tweak the FR through my ADI-2 but I don't want to at the time. That's not how I evaluate new speakers usually. Every speakers would need some EQ/room correction, but I see no point to EQ 1600€ speakers intending to make them sound like 500€ ones I already have (and like). This makes no sense to me. In addition, EQ won't fix the narrow spreading/soundstage I believe to hear.

R3s are running for about 40H now. If there's any burn-in to believe in, that shouldn't be an issue anymore. However, I was listening during one hour or two this afternoon and most of my subjective impressions remain:

- Very deep bass, probably the deepest I've ever heard from any standmounts (first 3-way ones I tried, tho)
- Focused imaging, with very huge scale at the center image. Plenty of details in it. A certain sense of deepness in the sweet spot.
- May sound slightly bright with some recordings. Not enough to turn harsh or fatiguing. Not an issue for me. But my personal preferences are going for smoothness.
- Soundstage is a very weird part. As I said, center imaging looks like a strong point, but in the same time, I hear a very left/right presentation, with some instruments being easily locatable right on the speakers. Sound don't fade out around speakers like I'm used to with Arias. I'd say Arias sound like a wide 2D wall, and the R3 like a 3D corridor (Sorry for the lack of English vocabulary to describe it). I prefer the "2D wall".
- Still thinking the low-mid sound thin, with somewhat recessed vocals and a perceived lack of "body".
- Still thinking the overall presentation is very accurate, with literally no flaw from a technical standpoint... but yet remains boring all the same.

I used to feel like you but the the thing is, below the transition frequency, different speakers can couple a bit couple differently to your room. By contrast, the R3s had some of the best midbass in my home, visible in the measurements, the region where my home tends to have the most severe acoustic problems. I don't know why. So unless you want to experiment a lot more with positioning, it is completely reasonable to EQ them below the transition.

You should also try messing with placement and toe in a bit more. At this point I don't expect you to like them more than the Arias, but the strong center image but easy left/right locatability sounds precisely like a lack of sidewall reflections to me. It's particularly evident with hard panned music like a lot of older stereo recordings. Sometimes people also don't realize dullness can be a directivity characteristic; there's a reason orchestras play in highly reverberant spaces and not dead rooms.

Have you tried simply bringing the speakers closer to the sidewalls? That can go a long way with these types of speakers, as it's effectively a bit like using wider directivity speakers then. I'd suggest trying to bring them closer to the sidewalls and then mess with toe in from pointing straight forward to just a little bit beyond full toe in.

View attachment 66400
Well... these were very unpleasant minutes!Boomy as hell.

That's a shelf filter, so that's to be expected!

Also try circa 200Hz, but it's be a lot easier to check where you should EQ with an MMM.

 

[maty]

Perhaps a simple explanation: KEF coaxial does not forgive poorly made recordings but allow enjoyment excellent productions beyond other speakers.

A large majority enjoy modern recordings of low production quality so presumably they should not like to discover the real quality of what they hear, I say.

 

[daftcombo]

Looks like I'm getting tired and need for a walk
Here you go:View attachment 66401
Not "boomy as hell" but still boomy for sure. Anyway, I'm going out for a bike ride, need some air.

Thanks for trying. Did you notice a change in sounstage?

Nice ride!

 

[daftcombo]

Perhaps a simple explanation: KEF coaxial does not forgive poorly made recordings but allow enjoyment excellent productions beyond other speakers.

A large majority enjoy modern recordings of low production quality so presumably they should not like to discover the real quality of what they hear, I say.

I can't believe the dozen of audiophile tracks Amir uses to test speakers are poor recordings.

 

[maty]

I wrote: ...they should not like to discover the real quality of what they hear, I say.

 

[tuga]

- Soundstage is a very weird part. As I said, center imaging looks like a strong point, but in the same time, I hear a very left/right presentation, with some instruments being easily locatable right on the speakers. Sound don't fade out around speakers like I'm used to with Arias. I'd say Arias sound like a wide 2D wall, and the R3 like a 3D corridor (Sorry for the lack of English vocabulary to describe it). I prefer the "2D wall".

How far are the speakers from the side-walls?
You could try listening with only a little toe-in, 5 or 10°.

 

[Zvu]

@VintageFlanker When you get back from the ride, try to toe them in to cross in front of your head. Start with left speaker pointing at your right ear and vice versa. I listened from about 2.5m distance with 1.9m between them. Nearest back corners of my speakers were 30cm from the front wall and 1m from side walls.

Result was nothing short of amazing. The best i heard up to that date. Carefull position of Kii Three in one room last year easily won, but still, the R300s were pretty darn close given that they are simple passive design.

 

[Jon AA]

- Focused imaging, with very huge scale at the center image. Plenty of details in it. A certain sense of deepness in the sweet spot.....
- Soundstage is a very weird part. As I said, center imaging looks like a strong point, but in the same time, I hear a very left/right presentation, with some instruments being easily locatable right on the speakers.

What sort of test tracks are you typically using? Any live recorded classical/orchestral or Chesky test tracks, etc?

I've long theorized a large part of the issue some have with the way more narrow dispersion speakers "soundstage" is because they're accurately revealing the lack of a complex soundstage in the program material--with much popular music containing hard-panned left/right and dual-mono center, but not much else. A wider dispersion speaker's lack of focus can fill things in between the speakers better and louder sidewall reflections can give the impression of a wider soundstage even when there isn't one contained in the program material. This can help the speakers "disappear" better and sound more pleasant with such recordings.

Then it becomes a preference/philosophical decision whether one seeks out speakers that'll give more of that effect with recordings that don't actually contain a very good soundstage, or seek out recordings that do contain such material that speakers accurately portraying it will highlight.

Just my completely unsubstantiated opinion....

 

[napilopez]

@VintageFlanker When you get back from the ride, try to toe them in to cross in front of your head. Start with left speaker pointing at your right ear and vice versa. I listened from about 2.5m distance with 1.9m between them. Nearest back corners of my speakers were 30cm from the front wall and 1m from side walls.

Result was nothing short of amazing. The best i heard up to that date. Carefull position of Kii Three in one room last year easily won, but still, the R300s were pretty darn close given that they are simple passive design.

He already said he didnt want to do that haha. And I feel him. I hate the way it looks. That said, I've sometimes have good result basically toeing them in just a little bit more than full toe in so that I does look too weird...

 

[Zvu]

He already said he didnt want to do that haha. And I feel him. I hate the way it looks. That said, I've sometimes have good result basically toeing them in just a little bit more than full toe in so that I does look too weird...

Just as an experiment. I did that in my listening room (while i had one). I wouldn't position them that way in my living room now, but it is good to know how much positioning can influence the sound and what aspects of it.

 

[VintageFlanker]

A large majority enjoy modern recordings of low production quality so presumably they should not like to discover the real quality of what they hear, I say.

I don't see how this can be related to any of my listening/captures impressions... Every measurments show that R3s are slightly brighter speakers, that has nothing to do with the recording used...

Did you notice a change in sounstage?

Not one bit. Speaking of bass, this isn't an issue anymore, this is really a strong point of these speakers. (Despite nearfield measurements showing, R3s are stronger in this area, and clearly go deeper)

How far are the speakers from the side-walls?

1,50M from the left wall and about 2,50M from the right (there's a door before the right wall, so can't center the all set to right side as I would)

I listened from about 2.5m distance with 1.9m between them. Nearest back corners of my speakers were 30cm from the front wall and 1m from side walls.

Looks very similar to what I have in my room, except for side walls.

You could try listening with only a little toe-in, 5 or 10°.

At this point I don't expect you to like them more than the Arias, but the strong center image but easy left/right locatability sounds precisely like a lack of sidewall reflections to me.

Perhaps. I also tried toe-in, it gives a fuller center image, I also like the presentation. On the other hand, quite unsurprisingly: it goes brighter. I still can't perceived what I expected to be a wider soundstage. Don't know if that is psychoacoustics-related, room-dependent, or speaker-related, as I think.
But the all point is interesting: I never had my past floorstandings (MA Silver 10s, actually Silver 500) in this room, but I remember MA RX-2, then Silver 2 in it. Is there any chance that wider directivity speakers (as Silver and Arias are supposed to be) don't need as much as side wall reflection as R3? I don't know.

A wider dispersion speaker's lack of focus can fill things in between the speakers better and louder sidewall reflections can give the impression of a wider soundstage even when there isn't one contained in the program material. This can help the speakers "disappear" better and sound more pleasant with such recordings.

I think exactly the same and I'm 100% OK with that. I happen to prefer an artificially wider soundstage over the exact original presentation in the recording, same are my preferences with headphones. That's, of course, 100% personal.

Anyway. Let's try few adjustments during the next days.

He already said he didnt want to do that haha. And I feel him. I hate the way it looks. That said, I've sometimes have good result basically toeing them in just a little bit more than full toe in so that I does look too weird...

Also, this is not intended to be a personal system at all. I listen to music and watch movies with friends, or family with it. I always found too much toe-in to be kind of a selfish tweak!