KEF R3 vs B&W 805

[envydd]

I have the R3 and my friend has the 805d3 which perhaps does no measure as well and is considered to be brighter (+midrange dip etc). I understand the R3 measures very well but the B&W sounds very vibrant for vocals. Is it because our ears are different and some folks absorb the brighter sounds better? If our ears perceive differently, then is a flat response the best metric for buying a speaker unless one is doing PEQ.

Given a flat response speaker, can I mimic the sound of something like the B&W 805d3 using room correction/dirac/minidsp etc?

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I have the R3 and my friend has the 805d3 which perhaps does no measure as well and is considered to be brighter (+midrange dip etc). I understand the R3 measures very well but the B&W sounds very vibrant for vocals. Is it because our ears are different and some folks absorb the brighter sounds better? If our ears perceive differently, then is a flat response the best metric for buying a speaker unless one is doing PEQ.

Given a flat response speaker, can I mimic the sound of something like the B&W 805d3 using room correction/dirac/minidsp etc?

If you want to vocals to sound brighter instead '' normal '', you can exaggerate the highs
You can modify you already '' in room correction '' that you have for your KEF R3

 

[Kustomize]

I have the R3 and my friend has the 805d3 which perhaps does no measure as well and is considered to be brighter (+midrange dip etc). I understand the R3 measures very well but the B&W sounds very vibrant for vocals. Is it because our ears are different and some folks absorb the brighter sounds better? If our ears perceive differently, then is a flat response the best metric for buying a speaker unless one is doing PEQ.

Given a flat response speaker, can I mimic the sound of something like the B&W 805d3 using room correction/dirac/minidsp etc?

Following.

I have noticed a lot of B&W have this sound signature, I once listened to my friend's CM9, and was amazed at how well the vocals came out!

 

[envydd]

Following.

I have noticed a lot of B&W have this sound signature, I once listened to my friend's CM9, and was amazed at how well the vocals came out!

Exactly. It’s amazing. And my friend also has the ls50 meta so I did the AB test with the same music.

I am happy to try any trick to make my r3 and ls50 og sound like that since I already have them. Trying a new speaker is like buying new furniture - needs approval

 

[envydd]

If you want to vocals to sound brighter instead '' normal '', you can exaggerate the highs
You can modify you already '' in room correction '' that you have for your KEF R3

Thx I don’t have in room correction yet. I use a smsl Dac and a topping pa5 for my ls50 and a ncore (+ a borrowed vtv purifi) for my r3

 

[envydd]

I could get a mini dsp flex with Dirac if that helps to convert my KEFs into a b&w like sound signature.

 

[Kustomize]

I could get a mini dsp flex with Dirac if that helps to convert my KEFs into a b&w like sound signature.

You could probably try to EQ. Make dips in the midrange. And have brighter highs. B&W sound signature is the smiley face curve basically. Popular EQ on older equalisers.

 

[Tonygeno]

I have the R3 and my friend has the 805d3 which perhaps does no measure as well and is considered to be brighter (+midrange dip etc). I understand the R3 measures very well but the B&W sounds very vibrant for vocals. Is it because our ears are different and some folks absorb the brighter sounds better? If our ears perceive differently, then is a flat response the best metric for buying a speaker unless one is doing PEQ.

Given a flat response speaker, can I mimic the sound of something like the B&W 805d3 using room correction/dirac/minidsp etc?

My response re these B&W questions is: what happens when you go to a live concert? Whose correcting the sound for you then?

 

[envydd]

My response re these B&W questions is: what happens when you go to a live concert? Whose correcting the sound for you then?

Didn’t get your point. In a live concert I just go listen, live I assume someone has done all the audio engg already.

 

[envydd]

Would love to hear the opinions of someone who has owned both kef and b&w. It’s quite interesting to see what measures well vs what sounds well.

 

[thewas]

Would love to hear the opinions of someone who has owned both kef and b&w. It’s quite interesting to see what measures well vs what sounds well.

I had owned both and done an analysis here:

Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition Review

Speaker measurements aren't as predictive of sound quality as you think they are. People need to get that out of their head. Who said such things exactly? Just about any range (600 to 800) measures badly, or at least very coloured And that is the very truth. Predictive sound quality nor...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Tonygeno]

Didn’t get your point. In a live concert I just go listen, live I assume someone has done all the audio engg already.

Well, the concerts I go to are live unamplified music in a 2200 seat hall with no amplification. The music I listen to is composed of unamplified instruments, typically recorded in a concert hall. If the speaker is mucking around with what is recorded, when I go to a concert, it's going to sound very strange, methinks.

 

[Tonygeno]

Would love to hear the opinions of someone who has owned both kef and b&w. It’s quite interesting to see what measures well vs what sounds well.

Kef, natural sound whose aim is to present what is recorded with little "editorializing". B&W, not. And I have owned both. If it were me, I'd go with the R3 knowing that it will provide more long term satisfaction.

 

[thewas]

I had owned both and done an analysis here:

Bowers & Wilkins 607 S2 Anniversary Edition Review

Speaker measurements aren't as predictive of sound quality as you think they are. People need to get that out of their head. Who said such things exactly? Just about any range (600 to 800) measures badly, or at least very coloured And that is the very truth. Predictive sound quality nor...

www.audiosciencereview.com

About the choice between both, I think its quite easy:
If you don't have or don't want or don't plan to use an EQ, choose the one that sounds best in your room with your most listened music to your taste.
If you use EQ take rather the more neutral measuring loudspeaker as you are more flexible.

 

[garbz]

If our ears perceive differently, then is a flat response the best metric for buying a speaker unless one is doing PEQ.

If your ears perceive differently then you normalise the world around you with your different ears. A bright speaker will still sound bright compared to the world you are used to.

I have B&W 805D (original ones) and have the following observation:
I loved them at first. The brightness translated to detail to my naïve mind. However these days I do have their treble EQ'd down significantly.
I also think they are great value for money. The 805D that is. I paid $4000 AUD for them. The 805D4 costs $12000 AUD ... it sounds practically identical. I would not recommend anyone buy 805D3/4 current models. They are way overpriced for what you get IMO.

 

[envydd]

If your ears perceive differently then you normalise the world around you with your different ears. A bright speaker will still sound bright compared to the world you are used to.

I have B&W 805D (original ones) and have the following observation:
I loved them at first. The brightness translated to detail to my naïve mind. However these days I do have their treble EQ'd down significantly.
I also think they are great value for money. The 805D that is. I paid $4000 AUD for them. The 805D4 costs $12000 AUD ... it sounds practically identical. I would not recommend anyone buy 805D3/4 current models. They are way overpriced for what you get IMO.

Thx. I will try out a 805S or 805d if something pops up in my local Craig’s

 

[wjp007]

Would love to hear the opinions of someone who has owned both kef and b&w. It’s quite interesting to see what measures well vs what sounds well.

I've used to have B&Ws (802 series 3s) and recently decided to move to some newer speakers (before the 802s crap out). And like you, I was trying to pick from the R3s and B&Ws. I prefer the brighter sound of the B&Ws, but actually found the newer B&Ws to be harsh. The R3s just weren't clear enough for me. I ended up having all three speakers in my house at the same time doing hours of A/B testing. I ended up with the LS50 Metas. They presented enough clarity for me.

In the last few days I've been playing with multiple different EQ solutions (REW/APO, Dirac, Audessy). Dirac has been able to create an amazingly flat response with surprisingly Audessy being the second. REW just inserted minor corrections in the 500Hz range (which in my setup is definitely needed). But for me, I ended up liking the sound of no EQ best. I find all the EQ solutions hurt the imaging which is really why I bought the KEFs in the first place. I know dirac is supposed to help with this, but for some reason it didn't for me. Maybe it's just my mind, but I find the cleanest path with minimal processing to be the best sounding (in my case I have the minidsp 2x4 driving an separate PA). I'm going to keep playing with Dirac to see where I get.

 

[envydd]

I've used to have B&Ws (802 series 3s) and recently decided to move to some newer speakers (before the 802s crap out). And like you, I was trying to pick from the R3s and B&Ws. I prefer the brighter sound of the B&Ws, but actually found the newer B&Ws to be harsh. The R3s just weren't clear enough for me. I ended up having all three speakers in my house at the same time doing hours of A/B testing. I ended up with the LS50 Metas. They presented enough clarity for me.

In the last few days I've been playing with multiple different EQ solutions (REW/APO, Dirac, Audessy). Dirac has been able to create an amazingly flat response with surprisingly Audessy being the second. REW just inserted minor corrections in the 500Hz range (which in my setup is definitely needed). But for me, I ended up liking the sound of no EQ best. I find all the EQ solutions hurt the imaging which is really why I bought the KEFs in the first place. I know dirac is supposed to help with this, but for some reason it didn't for me. Maybe it's just my mind, but I find the cleanest path with minimal processing to be the best sounding (in my case I have the minidsp 2x4 driving an separate PA). I'm going to keep playing with Dirac to see where I get.

Thank you. Re your meta vs r3 - my r3 opens up at louder volumes for my mid size room while my ls50 is awesome for my smaller study. In the mid size room the ls50 struggles with higher volume.

The ls50 meta is brighter than r3 to my ears. Didn’t they sound the same when EQed?

 

[wjp007]

Thank you. Re your meta vs r3 - my r3 opens up at louder volumes for my mid size room while my ls50 is awesome for my smaller study. In the mid size room the ls50 struggles with higher volume.

The ls50 meta is brighter than r3 to my ears. Didn’t they sound the same when EQed?

Even with EQ, I didn't like the R3s. The R3s start to drop at 12K. I found it hard to compensate. Like I said, for me the purest sound path gives me the best imaging and dynamics which I value more than the flattest frequency response.

 

[envydd]

Even with EQ, I didn't like the R3s. The R3s start to drop at 12K. I found it hard to compensate. Like I said, for me the purest sound path gives me the best imaging and dynamics which I value more than the flattest frequency response.

Then B&W or LS50M .... In general I find the LS50s to be best all rounders, wo EQ.