KEF R7 - Is It Worth It?

[SineWave]

Well, I doubt that's real Walnut, possibly an Alpi veneer (to maintain consistency) or similar but I don't know for sure.

Yeah, veneer is what I meant.

 

[Soniclife]

OK, now thinking again about the wood finish comments is making me realize it is more than just the color, but to make sure the wood was cut from the same tree or at least that the wood grain pattern and other visible attributes match between the L&R

Book matched veneer is what I assume is matched, nothing to do with sound as such. But different manufacturing dates does open up the possibility of subtly different versions as they settle into production.

 

[eyes-on-you]

I don’t think so. From a production point of view it makes little sense to even attempt pairwise matching of component tolerances. Keep in mind that studio monitors, aka. the really good stuff, is not pair matched.
Pairwise matching makes a lot of sense for furniture grade wood veneer, though. Is there any optical mismatch between your speakers that bothers you?

There is no optical mismatch. It wouldn't bother me if it is.

 

[eyes-on-you]

KEF's comment on the matched pair:

They also asked me for an invoice image.

I could not understand what its mean. Is there a problem or not?

 

[SineWave]

He used 2 "not"s in 1 sentence. That's a problem! lol

I would get clarification, as I do not want to put words in his mouth.

 

[richard12511]

KEF's comment on the matched pair:

View attachment 91863

They also asked me for an invoice image.

I could not understand what its mean. Is there a problem or not?

I think he's just saying it will not not mess up the sound .

 

[Soniclife]

KEF's comment on the matched pair:

View attachment 91863

They also asked me for an invoice image.

I could not understand what its mean. Is there a problem or not?

I read that, despite being badly written, they don't think there is a problem in the real world, but some part of the process isn't right and they want to investigate it.
I'm my experience companies like Kef want to get to the bottom of things like this, and ensure you are happy.

 

[helom]

I can't speak for the 7s but I was very disappointed with the R3s. The tweeter
was sibilant and the bass output was nothing exceptional for the size.

That said, the Dynaudio tweeters are quite overrated despite being better than the KEF R-series. The Esotar2 is easily outclassed by $80 Scanspeak units IMO. In this price range you're far better off going with a DIY design, maybe one of the speakers from CSS.

 

[eyes-on-you]

I can't speak for the 7s but I was very disappointed with the R3s. The tweeter
was sibilant and the bass output was nothing exceptional for the size.

That said, the Dynaudio tweeters are quite overrated despite being better than the KEF R-series. The Esotar2 is easily outclassed by $80 Scanspeak units IMO. In this price range you're far better off going with a DIY design, maybe one of the speakers from CSS.

What are the reasons for Dynaudio tweeter better than KEF's? I'm asking to find out.

Which criteria made it say that?

 

[eyes-on-you]

I read that, despite being badly written, they don't think there is a problem in the real world, but some part of the process isn't right and they want to investigate it.
I'm my experience companies like Kef want to get to the bottom of things like this, and ensure you are happy.

I asked again to clarify. Final answer as follows:

View attachment 92403

 

[Timme]

What are the reasons for Dynaudio tweeter better than KEF's? I'm asking to find out.

Which criteria made it say that?

I would also like to know that

KEF tweeters never sounded “metallic”
I think it’s just placebo

I’ve had audiovector speakers with dynaudio tweeters and they sounded great but not better then KEFs

 

[helom]

What are the reasons for Dynaudio tweeter better than KEF's? I'm asking to find out.

Which criteria made it say that?

An offensive sibilance I heard in the R3’s tweeter. It was surprising because I quite like the tweeter in the LS50s. Maybe it’s something to do with it being an aluminum dome as opposed to the Al/Mg dome used in the LS50.

The Dynaudio tweeter sounds a lot like a ribbon. It’s not my preferred presentation, however, it clearly has less distortion than the KEF’s.

A multitude of ~$70 tweeters from Madisound or Parts Express will sound superior to both. This is to be expected in the price range of the R series though. It’s less excusable for the price of Dynaudio’s Contour towers.

 

[thewas]

An offensive sibilance I heard in the R3’s tweeter. It was surprising because I quite like the tweeter in the LS50s. Maybe it’s something to do with it being an aluminum dome as opposed to the Al/Mg dome used in the LS50.

I'd rather think its the chosen frequency response and/or radiation pattern.

The Dynaudio tweeter sounds a lot like a ribbon. It’s not my preferred presentation, however, it clearly has less distortion than the KEF’s.

Do you know of measurements that show that?

 

[tecnogadget]

An offensive sibilance I heard in the R3’s tweeter. It was surprising because I quite like the tweeter in the LS50s. Maybe it’s something to do with it being an aluminum dome as opposed to the Al/Mg dome used in the LS50.

The Dynaudio tweeter sounds a lot like a ribbon. It’s not my preferred presentation, however, it clearly has less distortion than the KEF’s.

A multitude of ~$70 tweeters from Madisound or Parts Express will sound superior to both. This is to be expected in the price range of the R series though. It’s less excusable for the price of Dynaudio’s Contour towers.

The best way to back up your subjective impressions of being sibilant is to perform an acoustic measurement with a calibrated microphone, otherwise, it falls under the folklore category.

LS50 and R3 tweeter unit are very much alike, the biggest differences are in the whole UniQ assembly (R3 being a newer 12 generation unit), both use metallic domes with optimum stiffened shape technology, a tangerine waveguide and have similar breakup way above 20kHz.

R3 anechoic response is very flat with a mild broad boost in the highs, but no peaking or anything that could resemble strong or offensive sibilance. Check for example this In-Room measurement (ignore data below 1kHz since the speakers were spread only 50cm apart and surrounded by furniture cabinet loading the mid-bass + room modes) that clearly shows how the speaker behaves in real life, with a very flat response from 1kHz to 20kHz. That is a very detailed and revealing response in the top end, which may be liked by some people or considered "bright" by others but that is not sibilant, sharp nor fatiguing. Considering the speakers were only spaced by an AVR in between, it is mostly On-Axis response, once you spread the speakers further apart then you get more off-axis response, and therefore the top end gently rolls off (so the brightness is naturally solved by the means of toe-ing).

This other measurement shows that even the simplest tone control makes it a piece of cake to roll off the top end in order to achieve the Harman target curve, thanks to the very flat and smooth response upwards 1kHz.

 

[helom]

The best way to back up your subjective impressions of being sibilant is to perform an acoustic measurement with a calibrated microphone, otherwise, it falls under the folklore category.

LS50 and R3 tweeter unit are very much alike, the biggest differences are in the whole UniQ assembly (R3 being a newer 12 generation unit), both use metallic domes with optimum stiffened shape technology, a tangerine waveguide and have similar breakup way above 20kHz.

R3 anechoic response is very flat with a mild broad boost in the highs, but no peaking or anything that could resemble strong or offensive sibilance. Check for example this In-Room measurement (ignore data below 1kHz since the speakers were spread only 50cm apart and surrounded by furniture cabinet loading the mid-bass + room modes) that clearly shows how the speaker behaves in real life, with a very flat response from 1kHz to 20kHz. That is a very detailed and revealing response in the top end, which may be liked by some people or considered "bright" by others but that is not sibilant, sharp nor fatiguing. Considering the speakers were only spaced by an AVR in between, it is mostly On-Axis response, once you spread the speakers further apart then you get more off-axis response, and therefore the top end gently rolls off (so the brightness is naturally solved by the means of toe-ing).

View attachment 93466

This other measurement shows that even the simplest tone control makes it a piece of cake to roll off the top end in order to achieve the Harman target curve, thanks to the very flat and smooth response upwards 1kHz.

View attachment 93467

Subjective as it is, it's what I heard. Maybe the pair I bought was defective. I guess I'll never know for certain since I've returned them and am too lazy to conduct measurements anyhow.

I don't know about you, but if I listen to a speaker and immediately find it offensive and fatiguing, I don't really care how well it measures.

 

[aarons915]

The best way to back up your subjective impressions of being sibilant is to perform an acoustic measurement with a calibrated microphone, otherwise, it falls under the folklore category.

Agreed but your measurements do show a problem centered around 3k, similar to my in room MMM measurement of my R3. I EQ that bump to match the slope before and after and they sound much more natural. I also slight boost the dip in the 1-3k region, which brings out the missing highs. Dr. Toole has proven in double blind tests that the driver material has nothing to do with how something sounds, it's all about the frequency response but the R3 do show peaking in the early reflections which shows up in the in room response.

 

[eyes-on-you]

The subject is mostly focused on R3 but there is something i want to learn;

Do you think R7 has a drop of 1-3KHZ and a peak at 3KHZ?

 

[aarons915]

The subject is mostly focused on R3 but there is something i want to learn;

Do you think R7 has a drop of 1-3KHZ and a peak at 3KHZ?

View attachment 93868

Kef's official measurements are smoothed some so it's not easy to tell but the more I compare my MMM measurement to the KEF measurement of the R3, the more similarities I see. All of the new R series seems to have a small peak around 2500-3000Hz, using an MMM measurement it's closer to 3k in the R3 and right around 2500Hz in my R2c.

The R7 measurement looks like it's right at 2500Hz in the Sound Power measurement with a slight dip in the Listening window at 1-3k, I would want to measure in room to confirm that before I EQ. You have to experiment with the EQ on the dip though cause I was boosting that range on the R3 but now I'm experimenting with taking it out because sometimes they seem a bit bright and I'm wondering if they were designed with a slight on-axis dip so that the early reflections are constant directivity in that range. It seems to be what Revel does as well so certainly a possibility.

 

[eyes-on-you]

...if they were designed with a slight on-axis dip so that the early reflections are constant directivity in that range. It seems to be what Revel does as well so certainly a possibility.

Could you explain this sentence a little more?

 

[aarons915]

Could you explain this sentence a little more?

I've just noticed that if you look at some of the KEF R series measurements and Revel's, they seem to prioritize the early reflections over the listening window. The F206 is a good example of what I mean but many Revel's do it. I've also found the early reflections to be more important with EQ, if you go back to the R3 or R7 measurements you see you can either keep them as is and live with the peak in the 2-3k range or you EQ that out which leaves the dip in the direct sound, from my testing a peak in the ER response will come off as a bit harsh so I prefer that curve to be smooth. The ER curve is also a good approximation of what you're in room response is, that's why an MMM measurement can work well if you don't have a proper Spin.