KEF R3 vs R5

[warthor]

Hi Everyone,

Thanks for the great content on this website. I have just began to try to take some of it in and make better purchases with the expert help of this site. One question I had was regarding the very well-reviewed KEF R3. I have the opportunity to purchase the KEF R5 for the same price as the R3. My basic question is whether you can assume the same measurement characteristics from one speaker in the KEF R line as others. Or is it possible the R5 would be a downgrade? (for example you see the Revel M105, M106 are very similarly measured). One reason the R3 and R5 might have different scores is that the woofers on the R5 are 5.25 inches whereas the woofer on the R3 is 6.5 inches. I am simply repeated what I read from you guys but there apparently is some reason to prefer 6.5 inch drivers (i.e., choose the Revel M106 over M105).

Here is a link to the white paper with spin data for both. https://us.kef.com/pub/media/documents/rseries/rseries2018-white-paper.pdf
I also pasted the spin data from the KEF white paper for both speakers so it is easier to see.

I am linking it here because I really can't make much sense of spin data at the moment (except for basics such as the flatness of the curve), but I try.

I would prefer to have the R5s because I like towers, but not if there is a compromise in sound quality.

Thanks,
Warthor

 

[theyellowspecial]

Assuming no subwoofer, I think the R5 would be universally preferred due to the superior bass response.

 

[sweetchaos]

I have the opportunity to purchase the KEF R5 for the same price as the R3.

Really?
In Canada, Kef R3 is CDN$2800/pair and R5 is CDN$3800/pair (which is 36% costlier) retail.
So if you can bring the cost of R5 to R3, then it's a good deal to get R5.

but not if there is a compromise in sound quality.

Lower bass extension?
Mfg specs say:
-R3 is -6dB at 38hz
-R5 is -6dB at 38hz (yes, the same as R3)
-R7 is -6dB at 33hz
-R9 is -6dB at 30hz

Power handling?
R5 is more capable than R3, I would think. But specs say they're the same?

Also, not sure if you saw Amir's review of R3:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r3-speaker-review.12021/#post-349055

Spoiler: photos

IMO, either R3 or R5 is a good choice, so I'd say, it's a matter of decor (towers vs bookshelves).

 

[Fahzz]

R5 in walnut is $2100 US on Amazon right now if that helps you.

https://www.amazon.com/KEF-Floorstanding-Speaker-Pair-Walnut/dp/B07QZQ94ZD

 

[Zvu]

R5 - more power handling, two motors (instead of one in R3) for the woofer so cooling of the voice coil is better, Kef tend to use the same motor for their R series 5" and 6" woofers so you get strong motor pushing lighter moving system. In my opinion and if size is not a problem, R5 definitelly.

 

[thewas]

R5 - more power handling, two motors (instead of one in R3) for the woofer so cooling of the voice coil is better, Kef tend to use the same motor for their R series 5" and 6" woofers so you get strong motor pushing lighter moving system. In my opinion and if size is not a problem, R5 definitelly.

Also due to the dual woofers you may get better bass distribution => smaller room nulls.

 

[Zvu]

I wanted to write that but because of large wavelength i wasn't sure if it actually matters since CtC distance between woofers is roughly 30cm. But yes, that is one of potential positives also.

EDIT: Now eyeballing it, it looks that in R5 CtC distance between woofers is larger, my experience is with R500 - but they've added shadow flare in R5 moving the distance further apart.

 

[warthor]

Really?
In Canada, Kef R3 is CDN$2800/pair and R5 is CDN$3800/pair (which is 36% costlier) retail.
So if you can bring the cost of R5 to R3, then it's a good deal to get R5.

As one poster mentioned here Amazon has them at the same exact price (odd, I know!).

Also, not sure if you saw Amir's review of R3:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r3-speaker-review.12021/#post-349055

IMO, either R3 or R5 is a good choice, so I'd say, it's a matter of decor (towers vs bookshelves).

Thanks for your explanation and detailed post! I had read the KEF R3 review and saw the very high score from AudioScienceReview, and so was really preferring to get the KEF R3. That is what led to my question, but I simply did not explain the logic of my thinking or background well. I was basically wondering if it was possible for the R3 to get a great score and the R5 (if it was measured here) could simultaneously score poorly. This disparate pattern of review actually has occurred on whathifi, with the R3 scoring well, and the R5 less so. Part of my reason for hesitation on the R5 was the reviews on WhatHiFi:

KEF R3 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r3 is on their list of top bookshelf speakers)
KEF R5 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r5 is not on the list of top floorstanding speakers)

 

[warthor]

R5 in walnut is $2100 US on Amazon right now if that helps you.

https://www.amazon.com/KEF-Floorstanding-Speaker-Pair-Walnut/dp/B07QZQ94ZD

Thanks for your help here! Both being the same exact price it seems the R5 would be the clear choice.

 

[Kachda]

As one poster mentioned here Amazon has them at the same exact price (odd, I know!).



Thanks for your explanation and detailed post! I had read the KEF R3 review and saw the very high score from AudioScienceReview, and so was really preferring to get the KEF R3. That is what led to my question, but I simply did not explain the logic of my thinking or background well. I was basically wondering if it was possible for the R3 to get a great score and the R5 (if it was measured here) could simultaneously score poorly. This disparate pattern of review actually has occurred on whathifi, with the R3 scoring well, and the R5 less so. Part of my reason for hesitation on the R5 was the reviews on WhatHiFi:

KEF R3 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r3 is on their list of top bookshelf speakers)
KEF R5 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r5 is not on the list of top floorstanding speakers)

I’d ignore everything from what hifi. Given the same mid range and tweeter on both, as other posters mentioned, the r5 should sound better due to better bass handling. Both will still need subwoofer for the 20-40hz region though if you want deep bass

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

As one poster mentioned here Amazon has them at the same exact price (odd, I know!).



Thanks for your explanation and detailed post! I had read the KEF R3 review and saw the very high score from AudioScienceReview, and so was really preferring to get the KEF R3. That is what led to my question, but I simply did not explain the logic of my thinking or background well. I was basically wondering if it was possible for the R3 to get a great score and the R5 (if it was measured here) could simultaneously score poorly. This disparate pattern of review actually has occurred on whathifi, with the R3 scoring well, and the R5 less so. Part of my reason for hesitation on the R5 was the reviews on WhatHiFi:

KEF R3 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r3 is on their list of top bookshelf speakers)
KEF R5 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r5 is not on the list of top floorstanding speakers)

The R5 is a BIG BOOKSHELF xD, they arent big
i hear the R5 AND R7, i have the R300.
Between r300 and r5 is a little hard, however the R7 produce much more body and bass, is noticeable that extra muscle bass, if you want BASS i will go for r7, i think with that speakers are really good

however, the R5 + SUBS are a good option too

 

[Kachda]

The R11 and R3 are out of stock from the Amazon KEF Store, and now Walnut R5 are down to R3 prices. Perhaps KEF is clearing inventory to refresh the R line (which would be surprising given that they were only launched two years ago). R Meta perhaps ?

 

[bigLP]

The R11 and R3 are out of stock from the Amazon KEF Store, and now Walnut R5 are down to R3 prices. Perhaps KEF is clearing inventory to refresh the R line (which would be surprising given that they were only launched two years ago). R Meta perhaps ?

I am an LS50 owner. I do enjoy them, especially with 500 watts. I would like a bit more bass. I have been debating the r3 or new LS50 meta(which according to measurements, does not have more bass, but powered version does). The r5 at the same price must be an option too. If there is a meta version of the r3 coming, I'd wait and pay the premium for it.

 

[Soniclife]

The R5 looks to have slightly wider directivity from it's narrower cabinet, hard to say if this is good or bad, personal preference and the room will interact a lot to make this impossible to guess.
The R5 looks very cute in pictures, and does not need a stand, making it slightly cheaper effectively.
I think I'd buy the one I wanted based on looks.

 

[Kachda]

I am an LS50 owner. I do enjoy them, especially with 500 watts. I would like a bit more bass. I have been debating the r3 or new LS50 meta(which according to measurements, does not have more bass, but powered version does). The r5 at the same price must be an option too. If there is a meta version of the r3 coming, I'd wait and pay the premium for it.

What I said is pure speculation on my part of course, I have no way of knowing whether a R Meta series is on the way.

Why not use subs for bass ?

 

[bigLP]

What I said is pure speculation on my part of course, I have no way of knowing whether a R Meta series is on the way.

Why not use subs for bass ?

I have always been gun shy about subs. Room is small overall, whole house only 950 square feet. never though a sub was needed. My paradigm ref20 could energize things well enough with a 7 inch woofer and front port, so I would like to stay with just speakers. Duly noted, I get that suggestion a lot!

 

[Cosmic_Error]

As one poster mentioned here Amazon has them at the same exact price (odd, I know!).



Thanks for your explanation and detailed post! I had read the KEF R3 review and saw the very high score from AudioScienceReview, and so was really preferring to get the KEF R3. That is what led to my question, but I simply did not explain the logic of my thinking or background well. I was basically wondering if it was possible for the R3 to get a great score and the R5 (if it was measured here) could simultaneously score poorly. This disparate pattern of review actually has occurred on whathifi, with the R3 scoring well, and the R5 less so. Part of my reason for hesitation on the R5 was the reviews on WhatHiFi:

KEF R3 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r3 is on their list of top bookshelf speakers)
KEF R5 review | What Hi-Fi? (the r5 is not on the list of top floorstanding speakers)

What Hi-Fi's lists seem to have a lot of weird choices do you know how they rank things?

 

[Matias]

For the same price R5 no question. Even if it was a little more expensive. Towers are towers, in my opinion always better, even if to add a sub to both options later.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Also 2 x 5.25'' should be something like 7.2'' plus the bigger cabinet

 

[bigLP]

Also 2 x 5.25'' should be something like 7.2'' plus the bigger cabinet

Are you saying having 2 5.25 inch woofers is the same as a 7 inch woofer? Not to be ignorant, but is there a specific ratio or formula you use to make the comparison of multiple small woofers to one larger?