KEF R7 - Is It Worth It?

[eyes-on-you]

Hello everyone,

I have been following the forum for a long time without being a member, but today I am a part of the family.

My question is;

I decided to change it after reading the measurements of my own speaker; Dynaudio Special 40.

The sound getting better, while my money has remained in my pocket ever since I read this place. I do not have as much technical knowledge as you, I always try to learn by following you.

For this reason, I would like your help in consider the measurements.

I've read the KEF R3 review here many times from top to bottom. It also had a great impact on my decision. My target is KEF R7.

The measurements of two separate speakers are as follows.

I am waiting for your kind comments.

Note: My English is not good as my native language. Sorry for that already.


Special Forty Measurements:

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

KEF R11 Measurements:

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

Dynaudio is highly respected firm in the country where I live and people are greatly surprised and saddened by selling Dynaudio and buying KEF. They are classical audiophile, I can not tell that the measurements of KEF looks better.

They say; tower speakers cannot give the soundstage and three-dimensional effect of bookshelf speakers. In addition; Special Forty's treble unit is among the legends. High notes are not clear in KEF's Youtube video recordings bla bla bla ...

 

[sweetchaos]

Here’s Kef R7 measurements:
https://speakerdata2034.blogspot.com/2019/03/spinorama-data-kef.html?m=1

 

[sfdoddsy]

The KEFs are objectively superior to the Dynaudios and should be subjectivly superior too.

You could EQ the Dynaudios to give a better response, but the directivity is all over the place so it wouldn’t be ideal.

Nevertheless people love them. So I’d take advantage and sell them.

KEF is an obvious alternative. Revel is another. As are Genelec or Neumann with subs.

I’ve heard and liked the latter, but have owned a series of KEF bookshelfs (Q100, LS50, R300, R3, Reference 201/2). have dabbled with the floorstanders.

I can’t think of a valid reason other than aesthetics to go for the floorstanders.

The R3, due to its layout, measures better than its big brothers. It extends almost as low albeit not as loud.

Any lower you’ll need a sub with the R7 anyway.

Get the R3. With the money you save get 2 Rythmik L12s.

The combo will be slightly better than the R7/R11 from 100hz up, and way better below.

Slightly better would be used Reference 201/2s with dual subs.They don’t go aslow as the R3s, but are more neutral

Or, if you want to stretch, buy some used Reference 1s and the same subs.

They are the best stand-mounts I’ve heard, and have the best measurements I’ve seen to go with it.

 

[Matias]

Have you thought on maybe buying an UMIK-1 + REW and adjust the response of your current speakers? Room interaction is probably more significant than errors in measured frequency response in anechoic chambers.

KEF R series brochure with measurements below.

https://us.kef.com/pub/media/documents/rseries/rseries2018-white-paper.pdf

 

[eyes-on-you]

I used to own R3s (and their predecessor R300s) and have dabbled with the floorstanders.

I can’t think of a valid reason other than aesthetics to go for the floorstanders.

The R3, due to its layout, measures better than its big brothers. It extends almost as low albeit not as loud.

Any lower you’ll need a sub with the R7 anyway.

Get the R3. With the money you save get 2 Rythmik L12s.

The combo will be slightly better than the R7/R11 from 100hz up, and way better below.

Or, if you want to stretch, buy some used Reference 1s and the same subs

Actually, adding a subwoofer was an option, but cancelled. Also i don't want to deal with two more box placements separately. It makes more sense for me to come up with a solution with only a pair of speakers.

Here is what I want to learn; Looking at your measurements, did you find the Speial Forty model successful?

With the younger brother of the KEF R series (R3) and its big brother R11 with successful engineering produce a better sound than Dynaudio Special 40?

 

[eyes-on-you]

Have you thought on maybe buying an UMIK-1 + REW and adjust the response of your current speakers? Room interaction is probably more significant than errors in measured frequency response in anechoic chambers.

KEF R series brochure with measurements below.

https://us.kef.com/pub/media/documents/rseries/rseries2018-white-paper.pdf

I am adjusting my room acoustically, diffusers and bass traps are already present.

In fact, my goal is have a flat graphic of my speakers, where all the electricity turns into real sound to have the right musical tone.

I feel better to start the fix from there.

 

[sfdoddsy]

As mentioned above, yes the R3 is a better speaker.

This doesn’t mean you’ll prefer it.

B&W and PMC are badly designed speakers, but many love them.

You’ll get better sound with subs because you can place them better and EQ to taste.

The multiple 6.5 inch woofers of the R11 won’t get you much lower than the R3. Just louder.

One or two Rythmiks will give you true full range extension below 20hz, flatter response with or without EQ, and lower the distortion for your mains.

 

[Soniclife]

The R3, due to its layout, measures better than its big brothers. It extends almost as low albeit not as loud.

Can you explain this? They all look to measure very similar to each other to my eyes, within measurement error.

 

[eyes-on-you]

I am also curious about this explanation.

Also let me repeat my question; Is the Special Forty a good speaker by its measurements compared to the KEF R series?

Special Forty Listening Window

KEF R11 Listening Window

KEF R11
Top curve: 45 degrees off-axis response
Middle curve: 60 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 75 degrees off-axis response

KEF R11
Top curve: on-axis response
Middle curve: 15 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 30 degrees off-axis response

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

Special Forty
Top curve: on-axis response
Middle curve: 15 degrees off-axis response
Bottom curve: 30 degrees off-axis response

 

[Matias]

The R3, due to its layout, measures better than its big brothers. It extends almost as low albeit not as loud.

R3

R7

They measure pretty good both of them to me.

 

[Steve Dallas]

After many months of studying measurements and critical listening, I narrowed my search down to the KEF R7 and Revel F206. In the end, I chose the F206, because of its wider directivity and front ports, which work better in my wonky room. The R7 is an excellent speaker, and I would have been more than happy to own it. It was a very tight competition.

The difference between Dynaudio and KEF is in the honesty of reproduction. All but the most expensive Dyns apply a sort of "polish" to every source, so that even poor recordings sound listenable. KEFs are more monitor-like in that what was mastered is what you hear, for better or worse.

(For context, I have owned and loved many speakers from Dynaudio and KEF and still do own a pair of each.)

 

[eyes-on-you]

After many months of studying measurements and critical listening, I narrowed my search down to the KEF R7 and Revel F206. In the end, I chose the F206, because of its wider directivity and front ports, which work better in my wonky room. The R7 is an excellent speaker, and I would have been more than happy to own it. It was a very tight competition.

The difference between Dynaudio and KEF is in the honesty of reproduction. All but the most expensive Dyns apply a sort of "polish" to every source, so that even poor recordings sound listenable. KEFs are more monitor-like in that what was mastered is what you hear, for better or worse.

(For context, I have owned and loved many speakers from Dynaudio and KEF and still do own a pair of each.)

Thanks for your kind comment Steve.

Actually Revel was on my radar too, but only the F206 is in stock here. Its low frequency performance worried me. (I don't want to use a subwoofer)

I demo the R7. I think timbre more real than Dynaudio. Especially piano reproduction. I demo at two different hi-fi shops. One had R5 and acoustically the demo room was awful. The R5 was playing dark and lacking high frequencies. This is what got me thinking.

What do you think of the treble performance of the KEF R series?

Kef's dispersion is wider, isn't it? In addition; because of its coaxial structure, the off axis frequency response seems more lossless?

I will be waiting for your valuable comments.

 

[Steve Dallas]

Thanks for your kind comment Steve.

Actually Revel was on my radar too, but only the F206 is in stock here. Its low frequency performance worried me. (I don't want to use a subwoofer)

I demo the R7. I think timbre more real than Dynaudio. Especially piano reproduction. I demo at two different hi-fi shops. One had R5 and acoustically the demo room was awful. The R5 was playing dark and lacking high frequencies. This is what got me thinking.

What do you think of the treble performance of the KEF R series?

Kef's dispersion is wider, isn't it? In addition; because of its coaxial structure, the off axis frequency response seems more lossless?

I will be waiting for your valuable comments.

I find the R series to be slightly on the bright side of neutral, assuming the room is not dead / over-damped. Dispersion is wide enough, that brightness is easily controlled by adjusting toe.

According to my own subjective experience, I believe KEF's dispersion is wider than Dyn's, but I would have to see measurements to confirm that.

The F206 is not light in the bass--especially factoring in room gain and boundary effects. I have to use room EQ to pull down three room modes to even it out.

If you want good sub-bass performance, you almost always needs subs. Only the largest tower speakers perform well under 50 Hz. Also, there is very little content below 40 Hz in most music. Twenty to 40 Hz content is mostly reserved for movies.

Here is an unvarnished measurement of my F206s in my [terrible] room without subs. As you can see, lack of bass is not a problem I have.

If you are looking at the Soundstage measurements, they note that the NRC's chamber is not terribly accurate under 100 Hz. For comparison to the above:

 

[Timme]

After many months of studying measurements and critical listening, I narrowed my search down to the KEF R7 and Revel F206. In the end, I chose the F206, because of its wider directivity and front ports, which work better in my wonky room. The R7 is an excellent speaker, and I would have been more than happy to own it. It was a very tight competition.

The difference between Dynaudio and KEF is in the honesty of reproduction. All but the most expensive Dyns apply a sort of "polish" to every source, so that even poor recordings sound listenable. KEFs are more monitor-like in that what was mastered is what you hear, for better or worse.

(For context, I have owned and loved many speakers from Dynaudio and KEF and still do own a pair of each.)

Thats why I love KEF. I want that honesty, monitor experience and to me, the KEFs are beautiful speakers. I really like the looks of that UniQ driver array and I measures extremely good

 

[waynel]

After many months of studying measurements and critical listening, I narrowed my search down to the KEF R7 and Revel F206. In the end, I chose the F206, because of its wider directivity and front ports, which work better in my wonky room. The R7 is an excellent speaker, and I would have been more than happy to own it. It was a very tight competition.

The difference between Dynaudio and KEF is in the honesty of reproduction. All but the most expensive Dyns apply a sort of "polish" to every source, so that even poor recordings sound listenable. KEFs are more monitor-like in that what was mastered is what you hear, for better or worse.

(For context, I have owned and loved many speakers from Dynaudio and KEF and still do own a pair of each.)

I've been deciding between the Revel F206 and the Kef R7 for my living room secondary system, I narrowed it down to those 2 based purely on measurements and looks and my wife picked the Kef R7s ( in Walnut) as she much preferred the looks in our living room. I have never heard either but am familiar with the Revel sound. They should arrive tomorrow and will be used with a Rythmik E15HP (when it gets here)

 

[eyes-on-you]

As mentioned above, yes the R3 is a better speaker.

This doesn’t mean you’ll prefer it.

B&W and PMC are badly designed speakers, but many love them.

You’ll get better sound with subs because you can place them better and EQ to taste.

The multiple 6.5 inch woofers of the R11 won’t get you much lower than the R3. Just louder.

One or two Rythmiks will give you true full range extension below 20hz, flatter response with or without EQ, and lower the distortion for your mains.

What does lower distortion for mains mean? Could you explain in more detail?

 

[Laserjock]

I've been deciding between the Revel F206 and the Kef R7 for my living room secondary system, I narrowed it down to those 2 based purely on measurements and looks and my wife picked the Kef R7s ( in Walnut) as she much preferred the looks in our living room. I have never heard either but am familiar with the Revel sound. They should arrive tomorrow and will be used with a Rythmik E15HP (when it gets here)

Pics when set up

 

[eyes-on-you]

I find the R series to be slightly on the bright side of neutral, assuming the room is not dead / over-damped. Dispersion is wide enough, that brightness is easily controlled by adjusting toe.

According to my own subjective experience, I believe KEF's dispersion is wider than Dyn's, but I would have to see measurements to confirm that.

The F206 is not light in the bass--especially factoring in room gain and boundary effects. I have to use room EQ to pull down three room modes to even it out.

If you want good sub-bass performance, you almost always needs subs. Only the largest tower speakers perform well under 50 Hz. Also, there is very little content below 40 Hz in most music. Twenty to 40 Hz content is mostly reserved for movies.

Here is an unvarnished measurement of my F206s in my [terrible] room without subs. As you can see, lack of bass is not a problem I have.

View attachment 91195

If you are looking at the Soundstage measurements, they note that the NRC's chamber is not terribly accurate under 100 Hz. For comparison to the above:

Good choice for you, Steve. I am glad for that.

Thank you also for your detailed explanation.

Which models of the R series have you listened to? (asking because you say natural-bright)

Lower frequency success was not the only criterion for me. In the country where I live, F206 was sold 75 percent more than KEF R7. (I got a good discount and KEF R7 can be bought for around $ 2880 by converting the local currency to dollars. The non-discount price is around 3900 dollars)

Also KEF R7 looks better in my opinion.

In addition; Revel dealer does not have products for the demo. He's in a funny effort to sell the sealed box. I didn't want to take it without listening.

 

[eyes-on-you]

There is one more point I want to draw attention to.

When I look at the measurements, I see that 'in general' bookshelf speakers suffer more from cabinet resonance than tower speakers.

In the frequency charts, it seemed to me that R7 is not much different from R3. That's why I wanted to consider the R7.

 

[theyellowspecial]

R3 has very narrow dispersion. I think the narrowest measured on ASR alongside JBL 530 and JBL HDI series. Only RP-600M has less reflective energy. Assuming R7 is similar to R3.

Dynaudio looks like it should have wider dispersion with flush tweeter.

It's a good choice for comparison, rather than purchasing another wide dispersion speaker. At least you'll know what kind of dispersion pattern you prefer in your environment. I learned a lot about my preferences the last month having JBL 530 and Focal Aria 906 (narrow vs wide) together in my house.