Monitor Audio Platinum 3G

[Bozon]

Sorry but im not probably between 55dB, you are probably much higher, at SPL 55dB the fletcher curve still affect to much.
You probably are between 80 and 85dB. Nobody are going to gives you a 65dB measurements... You are going to recreate smartphones spl level to make the canton looks better?

Yeah and the same distortion from the article, are also one of the highest %, in this price point speakers tend bo be low distortion at this price point.
Even the ls50m is at 0.1% at 3khz.

The R and the reference have better thd at any SPL level, not only in high spl. Distortion graph can be readed in multiples ways, these speaker will play cleaner. Lower distortion+better overall cabinet+drivers mounting. Both speaker have their coloration the R and the Canton reference, the neutral speaker is the reference from kef.

having higher distortion, worse Fr/directivity (at least you never touched the direcvitity mess, yo are never going to get a neutral sounding with a directivity like that), plus you shared measurements that clearly show the reference have more a U Fr than a neutral FR, far away of what a neutral speaker sounds like, why these kind of stuff is in the kef reference tier?
Reviwers tend to say the cantons colorations is a kind of V or U Neutral FR, wich is not neutral.
So only because you buy the speaker that make them better? Even having the 9K you cannot detect the highly coloration man. And you insist as describe them as neutral.

So we got:
Weird mid range design that end in Higher mid-range distortion vs competition at this price. Ref 7K
Bad directivity for its price. Ref 7K

Because of the direcvitity, we got even more coloration , i still dont get why you point these as neutral speaker. You even share your not-neutral measurements and still thinks its neutral

There is no single objetive point for being comparable with the reference from kef.

Is more like you like the R coloration or the canton ref coloration?, some of them will prefer the kef R coloration(a bit too smooth in the top end and some extra pressence in the treble), that being said the R series sells a lot more than the cantons.

The R7 weight 31.4 and its something between the 8k and the 7K. These speaker are in the same tier even the weight is similar, but the reference is a flawless 50kg speaker, and also measures better Than the R and the reference.

Measurements are the real history and worth the effort for make these "tiers" of performance by its measurements.

If is not on the measurements is just your imagination.
Of course rooms tend to change much more the sound of speakers.

A hifi speaker with a little "U" FR tunning is desirable (not an exaggerated V shape of course) because that way:

1. you can tune the bass level to your room. If you have a large room you need more base level as the bass requires a lot more power than the other frequency ranges and you will have more air and less room gain. If you are in a small room you just lower the base level by using an sponge to cover the bass reflex port. That will give you a near flat bass response.

2. treble has a lot more directivity than mid range and bass. You need a higher treble level (2 or 3 db more) if you want a flat response at listening point. That can be of course fine tuned just by toe in the speakers. If your speakers are dead flat, or have a lower treble output you will end with a dark sounding system at the listening position.

You will want a flat speaker response mostly on studio or near field monitor speakers or headphones. Not Hifi home audition oriented speakers. That is why most high end speaker series have U shape the FR curves. Of course there are some brands that exaggerate this too much (B&W or Sonus Faber are typical examples) to sell "exciting" sound on stores. That is not the case with the Canton's Reference Line.

You are confusing "coloration" with FR. Coloration are changes on a natural instrument's tone introduced by mostly box resonances or driver/crossover defects. Coloration makes instruments sound unnatural (Kefs R are very unnatural (or artificial) sounding speakers). FR curve tuning does not produces that defect. When a speaker produces "coloration" a given note on the instrument or voice loses its original frequency and ends with a somehow detuned sound. FR curves don't affect instrument tunning, only affects SPL levels at different frequencies. In other words, you can fix FR curve just using an equalizer, speaker positioning, sponge, etc. You can't fix coloration without modifying the speaker itself.

If you have the opportunity to hear Kef's R series speakers and Canton's Reference you will know that the R series are far cry on tonal accuracy and rhythm precision. Actually the same day I purchased the Reference 9K my first attempt was to buy an R3 or R7 pair based on objective measurements. Those were a big disappointment. The Kef Reference (I tested the Reference 3 model) was a completely different story. They are great speakers, of course they are better than the Canton's. But I was evaluating price/performance not just performance at any price level. I found the R series artificial and unnatural sounding and wouldn't buy a pair at any price. Monitor Audio's Silver 7G series are a lot better on tonal accuracy than the R series too BTW but have other sound defects.

Regarding the SPL level. If you listen at safe combined (L&R channels) SPL level on the listening point, your per speaker output will be lower as the SPLs for both channels sum up.

Kef's better THD at any level is true, but, as I said before, on a real listening test (65 db level) that THD difference in measurement, in practice, does not have importance in effective sound quality. Looks like you didn't understood (or saw) the Canton's THD measurements at different SPLs that I posted previously.

Finally, regarding speaker....weigh??? you are saying that because a speaker weights more is better? So, you can make an iron case speaker that will weight 500 Kgs and because of this weight it will sound better???? are you familiar with open baffle designs?

Absolutely NOT. You want a speaker box that is correctly damped, so it can absorb resonances, and want a box that has minimal parallel surfaces reflecting and coloring the sound. The Kef's R box is well damped but it is a traditional parallel box and that effectively makes the speaker sound artificial. Kef's own LS50/Meta sounds much more accurate. That why LS50s together with Reference and Blade series are Kef's "reference grade" speakers and R series is not. The Canton's box is a multilayer absorbing material box, and its sides are curved so no coloration. I.e. they produce a very natural sound. And that is not directly related with weight.

I really don't understand why you are trying to undermine the Canton's Reference line if you have never heard a pair of those speakers. I consider myself brand agnostic. If the product offers a good price/performance ratio and the performance is at the expected level, I will buy the speaker that provides the better value. On all my years buying hifi audio products I have learn that objective tests are good but actual product experience is better. Objective measurements help you to rule out fundamental and mostly easily audible, product flaws, but what you can actually hear as a "better sound" has far more variables that what you can represent with traditional standardized measurements. Disclaimer: I am not saying that you can't measure those differences, I am saying that standard measurements can't and, also, saying that not all measurements have the same importance. For example, can you hear the difference between a SNR of 130 db vs a SNR of 100db??? yes the product that measures 130 is better on that parameter that the 100 db, but do you know if the 130 db product actually sounds better just but judging it based on an inaudible difference?

 

[Crosstalk]

On the same article you are looking you can see the THD figures a 90dB:



90dB is actually a very high SPL level. On a typical home listening room your per speaker SPL will probably be between 55-65 dB.

At 65dB the THD is mostly invisible on the measurement graph:

https://imgur.com/tlefcFa

So those supposedly high distortion numbers are completely irrelevant. It is true that Kef Reference and R had better THD at that high SPL level. But I really don't care (and nobody should) because my ears can't tolerate a 90 dB per speaker listening session on my living room.

Music is dynamic and with some music, we have peaks of above 100db easily at 3-4k where the canton problem has. Canton reference is comparable to Q series of KEF. Forget Kef Reference, even R series is vastly superior than the Canton reference speakers. I extensively demoed the 7K and ended up buying the R11. 7k had wider soundstage but very boomy colored midbass, and while playing a little louder than normal the string instruments timber changes, which is a serious flaw even on a 1000 dollar speaker. (you can check the measurements). If you already bought the 7K, sorry for your loss.

The Reference 7K came out in 2014. Back then it would have been an ok speakers, but now we get speakers under 500 bucks which doesnt have that nasty boomy peak the 7k has. Also, when speaker companies are talking decimal level distortion figures, 7k has nasty whole 1 or 2 percent in the audible region. even for 1000 bucks its mediocre compared to the current state of things. But in 2022, for 7k dollas, before jumping into something like that, please do a listen to some good measuring speakers under 1000$. Aesthetically the Cantons are very stylish, yeah they have Reference in their title if that matters. I dont know why all of a sudden this old speaker got a press review from stereophile after so many years in production. 7k in Germany costs around 3,7k in most stores compared to US pricing but even for that price its not my cup of tea. I woud rather get a r3 with two subs or ls50 meta with two subs.

 

[Crosstalk]

I evaluated side by side the Canton's vs the KEF's Reference. The Kef is marginally better sounding (maybe 5% better). The same conclusion I archived after auditioning the MA Platinum. A little better, but that marginally better performance comes with a hefty price tag. I am talking about price/performance not absolute performance here. Canton's Reference is a much better value product overall.

what metrics do you use to quantify that the KEF references are 5% better? Curious what is your criteria in coming to a conclusion. your preference? your biases? your idea of ideal sound?

 

[Beave]

SPLs over 70 db are risky:

Too Loud, Too Long—Learn about the factors affecting noise-induced hearing loss

The extent of noise-related damage to your hearing depends on three factors: decibel level, distance, and time. Learn how loud noises can put children’s hearing at risk over time.

www.noisyplanet.nidcd.nih.gov

On a stereo system you will have a combined SPL from both speakers outputs at listening point.

The method to determine your per speaker SPL at listening room would be:

1. Put some pink noise on your player
2. Adjust volume to a normal or a little over listening level on your listening point (this would be with both channels driven at the same time)
3. Change the pink noise for intense sounding music (for example heavy metal) to confirm the volume is comfortable. Re-adjust if needed
4. Turn off one channel (L or R)
5. Play pink noise again.
5. Measure per speaker SPL at 1 Meter distance from the non-disconnected speaker. Repeat for the other one if you need to reconfirm.

I have experimented with the SPL at the listening point. At what I consider a very loud level and uncomfortable, my measurements are about 70 db combined.

Of course there are exceptions. If you have a large listening room and you are far from the speakers you will probably crank the volume more.

That's a rather extreme reading of the article you linked. It basically says anything below 70dBA is safe no matter the duration, ie, you could listen at those levels 24/7 with little/no risk. It goes on to say that "Any sound at or above 85 dBA is more likely to damage your hearing over time," with the key phrase being "over time." The article doesn't say much about sound levels of 70-85dBA, but I think one could conclude that what's "risky" is sounds above 85dBA. Sounds between 70 and 85dBA *might* be risky with continuous exposure.

Of course this all seems to assume the sound levels are constant, which will not be the case for music and movies. Peaks 10 to 20dB above the average are possible, maybe even common.

 

[Beave]

A hifi speaker with a little "U" FR tunning is desirable (not an exaggerated V shape of course) because that way:

1. you can tune the bass level to your room. If you have a large room you need more base level as the bass requires a lot more power than the other frequency ranges and you will have more air and less room gain. If you are in a small room you just lower the base level by using an sponge to cover the bass reflex port. That will give you a near flat bass response.

2. treble has a lot more directivity than mid range and bass. You need a higher treble level (2 or 3 db more) if you want a flat response at listening point. That can be of course fine tuned just by toe in the speakers. If your speakers are dead flat, or have a lower treble output you will end with a dark sounding system at the listening position.

You will want a flat speaker response mostly on studio or near field monitor speakers or headphones. Not Hifi home audition oriented speakers. That is why most high end speaker series have U shape the FR curves. Of course there are some brands that exaggerate this too much (B&W or Sonus Faber are typical examples) to sell "exciting" sound on stores. That is not the case with the Canton's Reference Line.

You are confusing "coloration" with FR. Coloration are changes on a natural instrument's tone introduced by mostly box resonances or driver/crossover defects. Coloration makes instruments sound unnatural (Kefs R are very unnatural (or artificial) sounding speakers). FR curve tuning does not produces that defect. When a speaker produces "coloration" a given note on the instrument or voice loses its original frequency and ends with a somehow detuned sound. FR curves don't affect instrument tunning, only affects SPL levels at different frequencies. In other words, you can fix FR curve just using an equalizer, speaker positioning, sponge, etc. You can't fix coloration without modifying the speaker itself.

If you have the opportunity to hear Kef's R series speakers and Canton's Reference you will know that the R series are far cry on tonal accuracy and rhythm precision. Actually the same day I purchased the Reference 9K my first attempt was to buy an R3 or R7 pair based on objective measurements. Those were a big disappointment. The Kef Reference (I tested the Reference 3 model) was a completely different story. They are great speakers, of course they are better than the Canton's. But I was evaluating price/performance not just performance at any price level. I found the R series artificial and unnatural sounding and wouldn't buy a pair at any price. Monitor Audio's Silver 7G series are a lot better on tonal accuracy than the R series too BTW but have other sound defects.

Regarding the SPL level. If you listen at safe combined (L&R channels) SPL level on the listening point, your per speaker output will be lower as the SPLs for both channels sum up.

Kef's better THD at any level is true, but, as I said before, on a real listening test (65 db level) that THD difference in measurement, in practice, does not have importance in effective sound quality. Looks like you didn't understood (or saw) the Canton's THD measurements at different SPLs that I posted previously.

Finally, regarding speaker....weigh??? you are saying that because a speaker weights more is better? So, you can make an iron case speaker that will weight 500 Kgs and because of this weight it will sound better???? are you familiar with open baffle designs?

Absolutely NOT. You want a speaker box that is correctly damped, so it can absorb resonances, and want a box that has minimal parallel surfaces reflecting and coloring the sound. The Kef's R box is well damped but it is a traditional parallel box and that effectively makes the speaker sound artificial. Kef's own LS50/Meta sounds much more accurate. That why LS50s together with Reference and Blade series are Kef's "reference grade" speakers and R series is not. The Canton's box is a multilayer absorbing material box, and its sides are curved so no coloration. I.e. they produce a very natural sound. And that is not directly related with weight.

I really don't understand why you are trying to undermine the Canton's Reference line if you have never heard a pair of those speakers. I consider myself brand agnostic. If the product offers a good price/performance ratio and the performance is at the expected level, I will buy the speaker that provides the better value. On all my years buying hifi audio products I have learn that objective tests are good but actual product experience is better. Objective measurements help you to rule out fundamental and mostly easily audible, product flaws, but what you can actually hear as a "better sound" has far more variables that what you can represent with traditional standardized measurements. Disclaimer: I am not saying that you can't measure those differences, I am saying that standard measurements can't and, also, saying that not all measurements have the same importance. For example, can you hear the difference between a SNR of 130 db vs a SNR of 100db??? yes the product that measures 130 is better on that parameter that the 100 db, but do you know if the 130 db product actually sounds better just but judging it based on an inaudible difference?

Have you read any of Dr. Floyd Toole's books on sound reproduction?

Several of your claims above contradict the findings he describes in his book:

Wanting a flat response at the listening position?

Wanting a U curve of the speaker's anechoic response?

Coloration not being a frequency response related issue?

Real listening test levels of 65dB?

A speaker having (or lacking) "rhythm precision?"

Needing curved panels to prevent internal resonances and "colorations" in a loudspeaker (or conversely that parallel walls necessarily lead to colorations)?

 

[Bozon]

That's a rather extreme reading of the article you linked. It basically says anything below 70dBA is safe no matter the duration, ie, you could listen at those levels 24/7 with little/no risk. It goes on to say that "Any sound at or above 85 dBA is more likely to damage your hearing over time," with the key phrase being "over time." The article doesn't say much about sound levels of 70-85dBA, but I think one could conclude that what's "risky" is sounds above 85dBA. Sounds between 70 and 85dBA *might* be risky with continuous exposure.

Of course this all seems to assume the sound levels are constant, which will not be the case for music and movies. Peaks 10 to 20dB above the average are possible, maybe even common.

Yes sound levels are dynamic, and I know that ear damage is relative to SPL and exposure time.

I have made SPL tests on my listening spot in my home and found that 65 db peak levels are actually very uncomfortable (unbearable). I experimented progressively increasing the volume and found that a pretty loud, but acceptable level, for me, was around 55 db peak listening to music. For my wife, she is more sensitive than me, actually found that at about 55 it was still too loud for her.

In room SPL is always much louder than anechoic responses. THD levels needs of course to be measured at anechoic chambers to avoid ambient contamination. So, on my own experience and my measurements, that reported THD numbers are just "academic" with no real significance. The THD that you will hear on you home will be the room induced THD. Even the environment noise level on an very quiet room will completely mask that THD number.

 

[Bozon]

Have you read any of Dr. Floyd Toole's books on sound reproduction?

Several of your claims above contradict the findings he describes in his book:

Wanting a flat response at the listening position?

Wanting a U curve of the speaker's anechoic response?

Coloration not being a frequency response related issue?

Real listening test levels of 65dB?

A speaker having (or lacking) "rhythm precision?"

Needing curved panels to prevent internal resonances and "colorations" in a loudspeaker (or conversely that parallel walls necessarily lead to colorations)?

Most high end speakers brands have that kind of FR curve. Some would say that is for Fletcher–Munson curve compensation. Others assert that the "natural" (top end rolled off) is the best (Kef's speakers have that curve).

Flat response at listening point for me is the best (what I like the most). I have been using SonarWorks, Dirac, REW to correct my speakers/room interactions for years and always preferred the flat sounding target curve. Since I purchased the Canton's I found that using those DSPs was no longer required as I got excellent FR at my listening spot.

The rest of your questions I made my point on my previous post.

 

[Beave]

Most high end speakers brands have that kind of FR curve. Some would say that is for Fletcher–Munson curve compensation. Others assert that the "natural" (top end rolled off) is the best (Kef's speakers have that curve).

Flat response at listening point for me is the best. I have been using SonarWorks, Dirac, REW to correct my speakers/room interactions for years and always preferred the flat sounding target curve. Since I purchased the Canton's I found that using those DSPs was no longer required as I got excellent FR at my listening point.

The rest of your questions I made my point on my previous post.

Most high end speakers have that kind of curve? What's your source for this? What defines "high end" anyway?

You made your claims, claims that go against a lot of the published research on speakers, but you didn't provide any backing evidence.

So, again I ask, have you read any of Dr. Toole's books?

YOU might like a flat response at the listening position, and YOU might find 65dB peaks to be uncomfortable and 55dB peaks to be acceptable, but most people wouldn't agree with either assertion.

 

[Crosstalk]

So, you are just a envious liar troll:

View attachment 233735

I am sorry for your loss....

Since you did so much research on all of my old posts please read the ones after this one. I did follow up at the store with more hours of demo, and clearly could hear what was wrong with the canton. Initally I was really flattered with the Canton, without but there were lot of things I overlooked at that listening test. With more music in demo, I couldnt ignore the bump at 100 to 200 hz its giving more weight t everything around that region making them sounding weird. Kef was not flattering and I didnt like it at the begining. The more I listened to it, I felt the cantons filter on bass is inevitable. But the bigger problem was then when i listened them loudly, they sounded totally different at upper midrange than at low volumes tonally. Instant deal breaker for me !

Dude I am at no loss here. Infact when I look back, I realise how stupid I was back then. Thankfully @BrokenEnglishGuy saved me from making a mistake back then. I have zero regrets on the KEF and I am extremely happy that I didnt not pull trhe trigger on the Canton and cried afterwards. I may be envious at people who has something more technically perfect than what I have now, but at the Ref 7K? Lol!!!!! I must be high on weed for a week and a half to think something like that!

Infact if you go to the Ref 7K thread here , and read the posts one by one, you will know what is wrong with it. For me both the speakers were offered at the almost same price at the end, just 100 euros different. I went with the KEF as it had more potential.

 

[Bozon]

Since you did so much research on all of my old posts please read the ones after this one. I did follow up at the store with more hours of demo, and clearly could hear what was wrong with the canton. Initally I was really flattered with the Canton, without but there were lot of things I overlooked at that listening test. With more music in demo, I couldnt ignore the bump at 100 to 200 hz its giving more weight t everything around that region making them sounding weird. Kef was not flattering and I didnt like it at the begining. The more I listened to it, I felt the cantons filter on bass is inevitable. But the bigger problem was then when i listened them loudly, they sounded totally different at upper midrange than at low volumes tonally. Instant deal breaker for me !

Dude I am at no loss here. Infact when I look back, I realise how stupid I was back then. Thankfully @BrokenEnglishGuy saved me from making a mistake back then. I have zero regrets on the KEF and I am extremely happy that I didnt not pull trhe trigger on the Canton and cried afterwards. I may be envious at people who has something more technically perfect than what I have now, but at the Ref 7K? Lol!!!!! I must be high on weed for a week and a half to think something like that!

Infact if you go to the Ref 7K thread here , and read the posts one by one, you will know what is wrong with it. For me both the speakers were offered at the almost same price at the end, just 100 euros different. I went with the KEF as it had more potential.

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't went post by post looking for you. I just looked that thread and immediately saw yours.

Reading the rest of that thread I saw you kept loving the Canton's. So you previous post on this thread makes no sense at all.

Regarding the R series vs Canton's Reference, seems very weird to me your statement regarding string instruments. My experience is completely the opposite. On the R3 and 7 guitars are mostly wrong (I play guitar) and on those they sound out of tune. I haven't heard the R11, I wasn't interested on that model because it is too big for my room (maybe that model is better??).

Can't comment if the bass hump is significant or not on the 7k yet. I currently have the 9k model and my measurements and perception don't show any bass problem.

Notes:

1. That bass "hump" if is significant by any means, seems a lot like the BBC type hump. Absolutely nothing of concern. And easily fixable covering the Bass Reflex port.

2. The THD at the mid level if you get the volume loud enough to be "measurable" is still High-Q resonance related. That means that is inaudible/benign. I think the engineers that worked on the Cantons know this and found that applying that ceramic-tungsten compound to the mid-driver provided a big win on sound quality. That is why the Reference series driver has this treatment and the lower tier Ventos don't. They would never damage his own top of the line product. I suppose that they made hearing tests after their measurements (they completely measured the product on their facility, you can found information on the web) and found that the THD to be inaudible.

3. You maximize the "defects" on the Cantons. But you fail to remember how "slow" the Kef's R sound. You acknowledge that on your first (honest) post but now to defend your purchase you forgot it???

4. Quality: Cantons are a top quality products Made in Germany at Canton's HQ. Kef's R line is Made in China. The only comparable product from Kef is their Reference Line that is made in the UK and you know how much the Reference line is.

 

[Crosstalk]

Don't flatter yourself. I didn't went post by post looking for you. I just looked that thread and immediately saw yours.

Reading the rest of that thread I saw you kept loving the Canton's. So you previous post on this thread makes no sense at all.

Regarding the R series vs Canton's Reference, seems very weird to me your statement regarding string instruments. My experience is completely the opposite. On the R3 and 7 guitars are mostly wrong (I play guitar) and on those they sound out of tune. I haven't heard the R11, I wasn't interested on that model because it is too big for my room (maybe that model is better??).

Can't comment if the bass hump is significant or not on the 7k yet. I currently have the 9k model and my measurements and perception don't show any bass problem.

Notes:

1. That bass "hump" if is significant by any means, seems a lot like the BBC type hump. Absolutely nothing of concern. And easily fixable covering the Bass Reflex port.

2. The THD at the mid level if you get the volume loud enough to be "measurable" is still High-Q resonance related. That means that is inaudible/benign. I think the engineers that worked on the Cantons know this and found that applying that ceramic-tungsten compound to the mid-driver provided a big win on sound quality. That is why the Reference series driver has this treatment and the lower tier Ventos don't. They would never damage his own top of the line product. I suppose that they made hearing tests after their measurements (they completely measured the product on their facility, you can found information on the web) and found that the THD to be inaudible.

3. You maximize the "defects" on the Cantons. But you fail to remember how "slow" the Kef's R sound. You acknowledge that on your first (honest) post but now to defend your purchase you forgot it???

By the way the Ventos measure slightly better than the K driver speakers and you pay more for an inferior product! Lol! I had Vento 896.2s before and they are ok speakers. When it comes to imaging, its nowhere close to the UniQs of the KEF. Anyway unless Canton fixes their K drivers which is overdue from 2014s its not worth even half the price to me. The bass hump and BBC dip are not remotely related. Both would make the sound artificial.

4. Quality: Cantons are a top quality products Made in Germany at Canton's HQ. Kef's R line is Made in China. The only comparable product from Kef is their Reference Line that is made in the UK and you know how much the Reference line is.

I admit clearly that initially I liked the Cantons more, that was my first priority, Infact I went to buy that speaker. And I was flattered on low volume listening and I still consider that to be an ok speaker for low volumes. But for that price, no matter where its made, that flawed midrange made of ceramic tungsten is a no go in 2022. When you raise the volume beyond a certain level the upper mids on the cantons start getting the plasticy tone to it, which kills the enjoyment. Glad that I went 3 times to the store before I decided on the R11, I extensively tested both the speakers after days of 'learning' from here. Generally what I mistook as slowness on the woofers were the placement problem. We had a seperate discussion on the 7k thread for that. It was a mindblowing revelation for me, that depending on the placement of the speakers you can make them sound more 'fast' or slow! Also, closing the ports of KEFs made them super tight. You cannot close the holes of the cantons, also the problem with the canton doesnt come from the port.

When I demoed them for the third time, I went around the speakers and found out that even though its a 2.5 way, somehow the upper woofer and the lower woofer sound different. (I meant the ones below the tweeter, I know the one above is the flawed midrange!) The upper woofer sounded very unpleasant near it as if its kept in a clay pot. the bottom one sounds nice though. And that nasty boom is coming from the upper one.

Ok, we can eq it out? Not exactly as the directivity is worse compared to the KEFs.

One more thing, Canton speakers are assembled in Germany, the cabinets are made in Germany, but the drivers are made in a factory in Czech republic. Also, where is it made and how well it is made doesnt matter if its engineered poorly

 

[Adi777]

What about the most expensive Canton's?

 

[Crosstalk]

What about the most expensive Canton's?

Same story here too if I am not wrong, as we compared many of the graphs here, always when ceramic drivers from cantons were there as the midrages the distortion is always there. I would be surprised if its not the same story, but m not hopeful as I can see literally the same driver inside the 1k. But like I mentioned earlier, its a speaker line that is several years old, and imo, the tech got suddenly, surprisingly better that lot of cheap stuff now measure better than them.

 

[Bozon]

I admit clearly that initially I liked the Cantons more, that was my first priority, Infact I went to buy that speaker. And I was flattered on low volume listening and I still consider that to be an ok speaker for low volumes. But for that price, no matter where its made, that flawed midrange made of ceramic tungsten is a no go in 2022. When you raise the volume beyond a certain level the upper mids on the cantons start getting the plasticy tone to it, which kills the enjoyment. Glad that I went 3 times to the store before I decided on the R11, I extensively tested both the speakers after days of 'learning' from here. Generally what I mistook as slowness on the woofers were the placement problem. We had a seperate discussion on the 7k thread for that. It was a mindblowing revelation for me, that depending on the placement of the speakers you can make them sound more 'fast' or slow! Also, closing the ports of KEFs made them super tight. You cannot close the holes of the cantons, also the problem with the canton doesnt come from the port.

When I demoed them for the third time, I went around the speakers and found out that even though its a 2.5 way, somehow the upper woofer and the lower woofer sound different. (I meant the ones below the tweeter, I know the one above is the flawed midrange!) The upper woofer sounded very unpleasant near it as if its kept in a clay pot. the bottom one sounds nice though. And that nasty boom is coming from the upper one.

Ok, we can eq it out? Not exactly as the directivity is worse compared to the KEFs.

One more thing, Canton speakers are assembled in Germany, the cabinets are made in Germany, but the drivers are made in a factory in Czech republic. Also, where is it made and how well it is made doesnt matter if its engineered poorly

You can easily put a sponge on the downward bass reflex port. I had other speaker before with this port placement and did it very easily. You just need to buy a square sheet of sound absorb sponge and cut it to the port's dimensions.

If you really need to use your speakers a high SPLs, you should probably have tested one of the the bigger models on the series, the 7k is their small floor stander, those bigger ones are designed for higher power outputs (look at the specs on the Canton site). The 7K is competing by size with the R7 not R11. R11 is a much bigger speaker designed for bigger rooms and higher power. I have the 9k with the same tungsten mid/woofer driver and cranking the volume to what I consider "very loud" never heard any kind of cone breakup. On the contrary, increasing the volume level I experience better sound not worse on mine.

Directivity (or dispersion) on the 7k is actually better than Kef's R. The Cantons produce a very nice sound stage, even the small 9k bookshelfs do. The R line has the infamous shadow flare effect. The LS50 Metas are actually much better sounding that the Rs at low or normal SPL (if you put more volume on the LS50 they start to sound congested). I know people that has sold their R7 to replace them with a pair of LS50 as they found much better sound. Their main complain was the R7 "artificial sounding" (I call that out of tune instruments)

The Kef's R line sounds "slow", that series always have been that way. The old R300/500/700/900 had exactly the same defect (I heard them all when the that series existed). The other ugly problem that R's UniQ driver has is their wheezing on some notes. The original LS50 had the same problem, on the Metas still happens but much less frequently. I didn't heard any of those problems on the Kef Reference 3 I tested, however. I have a friend that in spanish call them "KEFomes" (boring).

Reading your purchase story, looks like your decision was biased by the measurements and comments on this forum from people that never hear them instead of your own experience with the speakers. You probably ended hearing what the numbers told to your brain. On the firsts two auditions you had you clearly liked the Cantons more, but, on third time, after reading the comments, you started to hear it different, that is just mind overtone.

Your comment regarding one woofer sounding different than the other is simply impossible, you can't hear one woofer isolated from the other without disconnecting one. Both are feed by the same connection from the crossover and both are exactly the same driver. Probably just your mind playing tricky games.

According to my contact with the importer, the Reference is 100% Made in Germany. The speakers itself has printed "Made by Canton Germany" not "Assembled in Germany" with parts sourced elsewhere. Do you have any proof of that statement?

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Directivity (or dispersion) on the 7k is actually better than Kef's R. The Cantons produce a very nice sound stage, even the small 9k bookshelfs do. The R line has the infamous shadow flare effect. The LS50 Metas are actually much better sounding that the Rs at low or normal SPL (if you put more volume on the LS50 they start to sound congested). I know people that has sold their R7 to replace them with a pair of LS50 as they found much better sound. Their main complain was the R7 "artificial sounding" (I call that out of tune instruments)

And the Canton directivity is better because you said it?
You are not going to change reality, you can repeat 100 times these kind of lies "my 7k is in the Kef reference league" and people are only going to laugh at you.


Can we please create a target curve called " Bozon target" and the research behind that is " he plays guitar"?
Harman target from Klippel nfs doesn't work anymore.

Also, i don't see any graph (for example, the directivity) or material that support your claims, that only shows your little knowledge.
Claims.. Claims.. And more claims without any single weight. Even the guy with the R11 (same drivers as any R) didnt like ur cantons and you got mad and attack him personally called him as " envious liar troll"
I remember pretty well the times he went to stores to listen the r11 and the Canton7K, he posted things many times.
As I remember he is German.

 

[HarmonicTHD]

You can easily put a sponge on the downward bass reflex port. I had other speaker before with this port placement and did it very easily. You just need to buy a square sheet of sound absorb sponge and cut it to the port's dimensions.

If you really need to use your speakers a high SPLs, you should probably have tested one of the the bigger models on the series, the 7k is their small floor stander, those bigger ones are designed for higher power outputs (look at the specs on the Canton site). The 7K is competing by size with the R7 not R11. R11 is a much bigger speaker designed for bigger rooms and higher power. I have the 9k with the same tungsten mid/woofer driver and cranking the volume to what I consider "very loud" never heard any kind of cone breakup. On the contrary, increasing the volume level I experience better sound not worse on mine.

Directivity (or dispersion) on the 7k is actually better than Kef's R. The Cantons produce a very nice sound stage, even the small 9k bookshelfs do. The R line has the infamous shadow flare effect. The LS50 Metas are actually much better sounding that the Rs at low or normal SPL (if you put more volume on the LS50 they start to sound congested). I know people that has sold their R7 to replace them with a pair of LS50 as they found much better sound. Their main complain was the R7 "artificial sounding" (I call that out of tune instruments)

The Kef's R line sounds "slow", that series always have been that way. The old R300/500/700/900 had exactly the same defect (I heard them all when the that series existed). The other ugly problem that R's UniQ driver has is their wheezing on some notes. The original LS50 had the same problem, on the Metas still happens but much less frequently. I didn't heard any of those problems on the Kef Reference 3 I tested, however. I have a friend that in spanish call them "KEFomes" (boring).

Reading your purchase story, looks like your decision was biased by the measurements and comments on this forum from people that never hear them instead of your own experience with the speakers. You probably ended hearing what the numbers told to your brain. On the firsts two auditions you had you clearly liked the Cantons more, but, on third time, after reading the comments, you started to hear it different, that is just mind overtone.

Your comment regarding one woofer sounding different than the other is simply impossible, you can't hear one woofer isolated from the other without disconnecting one. Both are feed by the same connection from the crossover and both are exactly the same driver. Probably just your mind playing tricky games.

According to my contact with the importer, the Reference is 100% Made in Germany. The speakers itself has printed "Made by Canton Germany" not "Assembled in Germany" with parts sourced elsewhere. Do you have any proof of that statement?

If you haven’t noticed the forum has science in its name. That means opinions don’t matter but facts and physics do.

Where are your facts?

Opinions we all have abound.

 

[Recluse-Animator]

Just leave Bozon alone so he and his Canton can get a room and have a nice time.

 

[Crosstalk]

You can easily put a sponge on the downward bass reflex port. I had other speaker before with this port placement and did it very easily. You just need to buy a square sheet of sound absorb sponge and cut it to the port's dimensions.

If you really need to use your speakers a high SPLs, you should probably have tested one of the the bigger models on the series, the 7k is their small floor stander, those bigger ones are designed for higher power outputs (look at the specs on the Canton site). The 7K is competing by size with the R7 not R11. R11 is a much bigger speaker designed for bigger rooms and higher power. I have the 9k with the same tungsten mid/woofer driver and cranking the volume to what I consider "very loud" never heard any kind of cone breakup. On the contrary, increasing the volume level I experience better sound not worse on mine.

Directivity (or dispersion) on the 7k is actually better than Kef's R. The Cantons produce a very nice sound stage, even the small 9k bookshelfs do. The R line has the infamous shadow flare effect. The LS50 Metas are actually much better sounding that the Rs at low or normal SPL (if you put more volume on the LS50 they start to sound congested). I know people that has sold their R7 to replace them with a pair of LS50 as they found much better sound. Their main complain was the R7 "artificial sounding" (I call that out of tune instruments)

The Kef's R line sounds "slow", that series always have been that way. The old R300/500/700/900 had exactly the same defect (I heard them all when the that series existed). The other ugly problem that R's UniQ driver has is their wheezing on some notes. The original LS50 had the same problem, on the Metas still happens but much less frequently. I didn't heard any of those problems on the Kef Reference 3 I tested, however. I have a friend that in spanish call them "KEFomes" (boring).

Reading your purchase story, looks like your decision was biased by the measurements and comments on this forum from people that never hear them instead of your own experience with the speakers. You probably ended hearing what the numbers told to your brain. On the firsts two auditions you had you clearly liked the Cantons more, but, on third time, after reading the comments, you started to hear it different, that is just mind overtone.

Your comment regarding one woofer sounding different than the other is simply impossible, you can't hear one woofer isolated from the other without disconnecting one. Both are feed by the same connection from the crossover and both are exactly the same driver. Probably just your mind playing tricky games.

According to my contact with the importer, the Reference is 100% Made in Germany. The speakers itself has printed "Made by Canton Germany" not "Assembled in Germany" with parts sourced elsewhere. Do you have any proof of that statement?

use CC and translate to english. Timeline 17:37. But I wont judge them being built in Czech, or even China or Vietnam. Main thing is how good the engineering. Also I have huge respect that they use wooden boxes to transport the components from Czech to Weilrod and these boxes goes back in the truck, Kudos for thinking about avoiding waste that way.

Regarding the woofers I clearly understand that they are connected to the same point in the crossover. But the positioning of them in a box can have different sound coming out of them. When you keep your ears close to them, you can easily notice the upper woofer is more boomy than the lower, I guess it has to do with more free floating situation since the lower woofer is closer to the base and that part is more rigid. I can be wrong too. Anyway, something is weird here on purpose or by lack of engineering. Anyway the finish on the Cantons are really good.

 

[Dougey_Jones]

I did. In 2017 we auditioned the Monitor Audio Silver and Gold the KEF R700 (later R7), the Reference 3 and 5. Monitor Audio sounded bright and fatiguing. All three Kef models won over the Monitor Audio one’s. We bought the KEFs.

Disclaimer. Yes sighted test and subjective impressions other people’s preferences might of course differ.

For me, the issue with KEF's has always been the dispersion and not the FR. Anything with UniQ sounds diffuse to me, I really like pinpoint imaging and it's not something I've ever heard a pair of KEF's do.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

For me, the issue with KEF's has always been the dispersion and not the FR. Anything with UniQ sounds diffuse to me, I really like pinpoint imaging and it's not something I've ever heard a pair of KEF's do.

The UNIQ is not magical, is not going to put some acoustic treatment in your room.

BTW, the dispersion is a very technnical thing, and don't require any listener to confirm that, just correct interpretation on measurement. And funny enough, the most advanced measurement system already have measure these speakers from kef, don't need any ear or person for confirm their dispersion.

By measurements, the R series have their own coloration. Their dispersion is one of the best. That's a fact.
You can clearly see, the R series are not flat like the references.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_r3/: Klippel NFS user

And the pro of having a coaxial:

In fact, with such nice dispersion is REAAAAAAAALLY easy to correct a speaker like that. Even amir point that in the graph.