Polk Reserve R200: Spinorama and measurements (a really nice surprise!)

[FrankFrank]

Hi, I’d like your advices, please. I want to replace my Q Acoustics 3020i but I don’t know if my Rega Io will be ok with the Polk. I can’t find which nominal impedance R100/R200 have. The official sheet reports minimum 3.6/3.8 ohms and the compatibility with 8/6/4 ohms amp. For Rega is suggested 8 ohms speakers (at 4 ohms it starts to become hot). The 3020i has 88db 6 ohms, do you think the R100 or R200 (86db) could be hard to drive or any other issue with the Rega?

 

[cd45123]

I have a Rega IO, was fine with the r200. How loud are you listening?

 

[FrankFrank]

I have a Rega IO, was fine with the r200. How loud are you listening?

Mainly low/medium volume listening so I’m not worried about volume, I’d like more dynamic and definition than 3020i. Yesterday I listened the R200 with a Cambridge CXA61 and the Polk would be perfect for the sound I'm looking for.

Do you have experiences with other speakers paired with Rega Io?

 

[cd45123]

I have the IO paired with the KEF R3 now.

 

[mhardy6647]

Hi, I’d like your advices, please. I want to replace my Q Acoustics 3020i but I don’t know if my Rega Io will be ok with the Polk. I can’t find which nominal impedance R100/R200 have. The official sheet reports minimum 3.6/3.8 ohms and the compatibility with 8/6/4 ohms amp. For Rega is suggested 8 ohms speakers (at 4 ohms it starts to become hot). The 3020i has 88db 6 ohms, do you think the R100 or R200 (86db) could be hard to drive or any other issue with the Rega?

Better than nominal impedance, here's the actual impedance curve measured for an R100.

source: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/polk_r100/

The impedance appears to dip pretty low between 200 and 500 Hz. I'd put it on the low side of 4 ohms overall (maybe 3).
That said, the R200s haven't been difficult to drive, and the moderately powered (by today's standards) rather ancient class AB Yamaha receiver (?!) I have been using them with doesn't get any warmer driving the R200s than it has with anything else here I've used it with

 

[ROOSKIE]

Has anyone actually compared the Reserve series to the Legend series or Revel for that matter?

This seems almost too good to be true and I’m going to end up buying one to hear for myself but have been eyeing up Revel again…m106 wasn’t my cup of tea although I want to give it another try.

Sort of -- I had an extensive demo of the L200 when it was new, and I've bought the R200.
Not head to head, though.
The L200 is, in some respects, prettier/more impressive looking (real wood's nice), but the plastic stuff around its rear port is at least as goofy and tacky looking as is the R200's 1950s American "lead sled" automobile tail-light look.
ELL
DSC_6908 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

ARR
DSC_0327 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

My sense was that the L200 was slightly superior, but I cannot even qualify that statement, much less quantify it.

I thought then, and still think, that the L200 is overpriced by about a factor of two for what it delivers. This is why I was (for lack of a better word) excited when the R series was introduced. The R200 is more in line with my expectations for sound quality per dollar spent. With the "influencer" discount Polk offered (40%) a few months ago, I think the R200 was the best buy in consumer hifi (ca. $440 the pair in the US). Savvy buyers took advantage of an additional pop-up 10% discount on top of the 40% discount when they bought theirs; I am... not so savvy.

All this being said, there are plenty of perfectly decent smaller loudspeakers available in the... I dunno... under $500 US the pair price range today.
I remain disappointed that, almost without exception, they're low sensitivity and are of low nominal impedance; but cheap amplifiers with adequate grunt to tackle the fashionably sadistic loudspeaker loads of "today" are common enough (in both senses of the word "common")

I just did, at least in part.
Before I comment on the M16 vs R200, I will touch on the L200.
I had the L200 awhile ago and it was only in my possession for a couple days and listened to in my old/different room. I did not have the R200, it was not even out yet.
My memory is of basically liking the L200 at the time and thinking it was a somewhat underrated speaker, the price seemed justified to me based on typical costs associated with real wood veneered cabs and being a flagship product which is never supposed to be the best value -ever.

Now I have a pair of the R200 here now and a pair of the Revel M16. Both are speakers I really just started listening to within the last few days.
You all have the measurements in myriad of ways for both speakers. What follows is my subjective listening experience thus far.
Bear in mind many speakers cross my path and I am no real fan boy of any particular brand, I am down to like or dislike just about anything. (I have both liked and disliked a few Revel & Polk speakers.)

I do not like the R200, nor do I understand it's appeal in the subjective press. Yes, it seems to measure well, but the subjective press isn't really based off of that, so now what?
This is one dull and boring sounding speaker. Not neutral, not just dark - dull and very "average joe" sounding. Like playing your jams through a couple thick flannel shirts with a nice chestly 200-500hrz broad resonance thrown in (where that comes from I am not sure yet, it just sounds unclean there). Zero and I mean zero vibrancy and not even a pleasantly beautiful but delicate lets take the scenic drive. What gives here people?
The M16 is better sounding to me by just about every metric one(or at least I have) has in a subjective experience. There would be absolutely no chance I would ever take the R200 over it.
To make matter worse it really suffers when off axis, so listening with my GF side by side is even more, well, dull. Yikes.
The positive is that is not offensive in the sense that it mutes out the potential bad highs. However that is not hifi. I understand that for some folks this is good thing, maybe you have a very bright sounding room, or are very nearfield, or have no interest in what goes on above 5k or have a sensitivity to realism above 5k. Maybe you just want background music that stays in the back, but then why buy $750 speakers?
Anyway I will have to try playing with it more and see if some PEQ and some other adjustments can help.

In my in room M.M.measurements, which only say so much, the tweeter energy is notably down which corroborates what I am hearing.*
*in terms of a line drawn from 300-4k and extended out, delineating the room energy trend.*
an extra -1db by 5k
-3.5ish db by 8
-5ish by 10k
&-6db down by 13.5k

What is it about this speaker that raises all the high praise. I am not hearing it. Sounds like an old ELAC B6 or those new ELAC BS41's that I heard the other day that are as hifi as dull record player needles.
I can say it seems smooth through much of the mids but that is not enough.

@cd45123 what did you not like about the Revel M106?

 

[sdiver68]

I just did, at least in part.
Before I comment on the M16 vs R200, I will touch on the L200.
I had the L200 awhile ago and it was only in my possession for a couple days and listened to in my old/different room. I did not have the R200, it was not even out yet.
My memory is of basically liking the L200 at the time and thinking it was a somewhat underrated speaker, the price seemed justified to me based on typical costs associated with real wood veneered cabs and being a flagship product which is never supposed to be the best value -ever.

Now I have a pair of the R200 here now and a pair of the Revel M16. Both are speakers I really just started listening to within the last few days.
You all have the measurements in myriad of ways for both speakers. What follows is my subjective listening experience thus far.
Bear in mind many speakers cross my path and I am no real fan boy of any particular brand, I am down to like or dislike just about anything. (I have both liked and disliked a few Revel & Polk speakers.)

I do not like the R200, nor do I understand it's appeal in the subjective press. Yes, it seems to measure well, but the subjective press isn't really based off of that, so now what?
This is one dull and boring sounding speaker. Not neutral, not just dark - dull and very "average joe" sounding. Like playing your jams through a couple thick flannel shirts with a nice chestly 200-500hrz broad resonance thrown in (where that comes from I am not sure yet, it just sounds unclean there). Zero and I mean zero vibrancy and not even a pleasantly beautiful but delicate lets take the scenic drive. What gives here people?
The M16 is better sounding to me by just about every metric one(or at least I have) has in a subjective experience. There would be absolutely no chance I would ever take the R200 over it.
To make matter worse it really suffers when off axis, so listening with my GF side by side is even more, well, dull. Yikes.
The positive is that is not offensive in the sense that it mutes out the potential bad highs. However that is not hifi. I understand that for some folks this is good thing, maybe you have a very bright sounding room, or are very nearfield, or have no interest in what goes on above 5k or have a sensitivity to realism above 5k. Maybe you just want background music that stays in the back, but then why buy $750 speakers?
Anyway I will have to try playing with it more and see if some PEQ and some other adjustments can help.

In my in room M.M.measurements, which only say so much, the tweeter energy is notably down which corroborates what I am hearing.*
*in terms of a line drawn from 300-4k and extended out, delineating the room energy trend.*
an extra -1db by 5k
-3.5ish db by 8
-5ish by 10k
&-6db down by 13.5k

What is it about this speaker that raises all the high praise. I am not hearing it. Sounds like an old ELAC B6 or those new ELAC BS41's that I heard the other day that are as hifi as dull record player needles.
I can say it seems smooth through much of the mids but that is not enough.

@cd45123 what did you not like about the Revel M106?

I have R100 (in addition to Infinity Ref 263 and Revel F206) and can only vehemently disagree with almost everything you wrote.

I will say axis positioning is important in the highs.

 

[mhardy6647]

I don't find the highs of the R200 objectionably directional -- but in fairness I am used to rather different kinds of treble drivers and room coupling

 

[Transmaniacon]

I just did, at least in part.
Before I comment on the M16 vs R200, I will touch on the L200.
I had the L200 awhile ago and it was only in my possession for a couple days and listened to in my old/different room. I did not have the R200, it was not even out yet.
My memory is of basically liking the L200 at the time and thinking it was a somewhat underrated speaker, the price seemed justified to me based on typical costs associated with real wood veneered cabs and being a flagship product which is never supposed to be the best value -ever.

Now I have a pair of the R200 here now and a pair of the Revel M16. Both are speakers I really just started listening to within the last few days.
You all have the measurements in myriad of ways for both speakers. What follows is my subjective listening experience thus far.
Bear in mind many speakers cross my path and I am no real fan boy of any particular brand, I am down to like or dislike just about anything. (I have both liked and disliked a few Revel & Polk speakers.)

I do not like the R200, nor do I understand it's appeal in the subjective press. Yes, it seems to measure well, but the subjective press isn't really based off of that, so now what?
This is one dull and boring sounding speaker. Not neutral, not just dark - dull and very "average joe" sounding. Like playing your jams through a couple thick flannel shirts with a nice chestly 200-500hrz broad resonance thrown in (where that comes from I am not sure yet, it just sounds unclean there). Zero and I mean zero vibrancy and not even a pleasantly beautiful but delicate lets take the scenic drive. What gives here people?
The M16 is better sounding to me by just about every metric one(or at least I have) has in a subjective experience. There would be absolutely no chance I would ever take the R200 over it.
To make matter worse it really suffers when off axis, so listening with my GF side by side is even more, well, dull. Yikes.
The positive is that is not offensive in the sense that it mutes out the potential bad highs. However that is not hifi. I understand that for some folks this is good thing, maybe you have a very bright sounding room, or are very nearfield, or have no interest in what goes on above 5k or have a sensitivity to realism above 5k. Maybe you just want background music that stays in the back, but then why buy $750 speakers?
Anyway I will have to try playing with it more and see if some PEQ and some other adjustments can help.

In my in room M.M.measurements, which only say so much, the tweeter energy is notably down which corroborates what I am hearing.*
*in terms of a line drawn from 300-4k and extended out, delineating the room energy trend.*
an extra -1db by 5k
-3.5ish db by 8
-5ish by 10k
&-6db down by 13.5k

What is it about this speaker that raises all the high praise. I am not hearing it. Sounds like an old ELAC B6 or those new ELAC BS41's that I heard the other day that are as hifi as dull record player needles.
I can say it seems smooth through much of the mids but that is not enough.

@cd45123 what did you not like about the Revel M106?

Your impressions are certainly puzzling to me, not neutral and dark sounding are the last words I would use to describe these. Do you perhaps have an issue with the speakers? How are they set up and what is powering them?

 

[napilopez]

I just did, at least in part.
Before I comment on the M16 vs R200, I will touch on the L200.
I had the L200 awhile ago and it was only in my possession for a couple days and listened to in my old/different room. I did not have the R200, it was not even out yet.
My memory is of basically liking the L200 at the time and thinking it was a somewhat underrated speaker, the price seemed justified to me based on typical costs associated with real wood veneered cabs and being a flagship product which is never supposed to be the best value -ever.

Now I have a pair of the R200 here now and a pair of the Revel M16. Both are speakers I really just started listening to within the last few days.
You all have the measurements in myriad of ways for both speakers. What follows is my subjective listening experience thus far.
Bear in mind many speakers cross my path and I am no real fan boy of any particular brand, I am down to like or dislike just about anything. (I have both liked and disliked a few Revel & Polk speakers.)

I do not like the R200, nor do I understand it's appeal in the subjective press. Yes, it seems to measure well, but the subjective press isn't really based off of that, so now what?
This is one dull and boring sounding speaker. Not neutral, not just dark - dull and very "average joe" sounding. Like playing your jams through a couple thick flannel shirts with a nice chestly 200-500hrz broad resonance thrown in (where that comes from I am not sure yet, it just sounds unclean there). Zero and I mean zero vibrancy and not even a pleasantly beautiful but delicate lets take the scenic drive. What gives here people?
The M16 is better sounding to me by just about every metric one(or at least I have) has in a subjective experience. There would be absolutely no chance I would ever take the R200 over it.
To make matter worse it really suffers when off axis, so listening with my GF side by side is even more, well, dull. Yikes.
The positive is that is not offensive in the sense that it mutes out the potential bad highs. However that is not hifi. I understand that for some folks this is good thing, maybe you have a very bright sounding room, or are very nearfield, or have no interest in what goes on above 5k or have a sensitivity to realism above 5k. Maybe you just want background music that stays in the back, but then why buy $750 speakers?
Anyway I will have to try playing with it more and see if some PEQ and some other adjustments can help.

In my in room M.M.measurements, which only say so much, the tweeter energy is notably down which corroborates what I am hearing.*
*in terms of a line drawn from 300-4k and extended out, delineating the room energy trend.*
an extra -1db by 5k
-3.5ish db by 8
-5ish by 10k
&-6db down by 13.5k

What is it about this speaker that raises all the high praise. I am not hearing it. Sounds like an old ELAC B6 or those new ELAC BS41's that I heard the other day that are as hifi as dull record player needles.
I can say it seems smooth through much of the mids but that is not enough.

@cd45123 what did you not like about the Revel M106?

Dull is pretty much the exact opposite of what comes to mind with this speaker! A bit too forward, especially on-axis, was actually my complaint! Considering it measures nearly exactly the same as the L200 but with fewer resonances, these impressions are all the more surprising =]

Not criticizing your impressions by the way, just interesting to note that sometimes there are just other factors at play.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Your impressions are certainly puzzling to me, not neutral and dark sounding are the last words I would use to describe these. Do you perhaps have an issue with the speakers? How are they set up and what is powering them?

I have 20 pairs of speakers here currently (not to mention another 10 pairs over the last year) and the R200 is currently the dullest sounding speaker here now that I sent that ELAC BS41 back to Amazon.
No issue with the amps. I have been switching several pairs of speakers in and out over the last several days.
It could be possible that my speakers both have some issue internally but they match with .5db over most of the spectrum.

My statement "This is one dull and boring sounding speaker. Not neutral, not just dark - dull and very "average joe" sounding", is saying that the dull sound is not simply because they are neutral or on the darker side, it is because they are in fact dull.
I am very used to a neutral sound and have neutral speakers here. Compared to the R3, which is a very neutral speaker these R200's sound dead.

By the way I also have the Polk Xt20 and Xt15 here which need a bit of shelving down past 5k but sound very good matched with stereo subs at 150hrz(to essentially make 3 ways)
The Xt15 in particular is superb.
I have yet to compare it directly with the R200.

I have R100 (in addition to Infinity Ref 263 and Revel F206) and can only vehemently disagree with almost everything you wrote.

I will say axis positioning is important in the highs.

I used to have 2 RC263's in stereo.
Loved them. They were a bit bright though. Maybe needed a 1-1.5db nip in the highs.
I don't have them anymore.
Based on memory never once did I find them dull.
Every track with these Polk R200's sounds low fi compared with what I have compared them with so far.

So if you vehemently disagree, what are you hearing? I would not think the 200 are much different from the 100's.
Is your in room treble energy on the R100's shelved way down like my 200's?

Dull is pretty much the exact opposite of what comes to mind with this speaker! A bit too forward, especially on-axis, was actually my complaint! Considering it measures nearly exactly the same as the L200 but with fewer resonances, these impressions are all the more surprising =]

Not criticizing your impressions by the way, just interesting to note that sometimes there are just other factors at play.

You are one of my favs.
Again I have many speakers here. My set of R200's is super dull.
Had My Gf listen without any information provide in fairly carefully matched demo and she asked what happened to the sound in a comparison with the M16.
What other factors can we consider here?

(the L200 as I mentioned is no longer here and the room was a different one with stronger sidewall reflection and smaller in size, so I can't be certain I would like them here now) Wish I could try them again for like 30minutes tho.)

 

[Walter]

What other factors can we consider here?

Recent purchase? Just wondering if supply chain issues caused Polk to make a very poorly chosen parts substition in the crossover.

 

[napilopez]

You are one of my favs.
Again I have many speakers here. My set of R200's is super dull.
Had My Gf listen without any information provide in fairly carefully matched demo and she asked what happened to the sound in a comparison with the M16.
What other factors can we consider here?

I appreciate that =]

And... no clue! I know you have plenty of speakers, so it's definitely surprising. I tested and measured these around the same time as the Genelec 8341B, JBL 4309, and Focal Solo 6 Be. The R200 were the most forward of the bunch, and from my recollection my second favorite behind the genelecs by a bit! I can only suggest giving the 3khz region a boost and cutting the 200-500 hz region if you hear a resonance there?

Erins measurements and tonality impressions of the R100 also seem to track with mine of thee r200, and they measure similarly.

If you have a chance, you could try giving the speaker a measure(aimed at tweeter) from about 1.5-2 feet, especially if you can get it a few feet away from walls(1m+ is better for directivity, but in my experience 2-3x baffle width tends to be enough for bookshelf speakers). That should get you very close to the quasi anechoic result and could confirm there's nothing amiss with your units. In one instance.

Once i received speakers where just one of the tweeters was dented and though the measurements weren't that off -- mainly the highs on that unit were reduced relative to the other by about 2 dB -- it sounded very dull, even after fixing the dent. A new pair fixed it.

But more likely, some combination of your preferences and your room just doesn't jive with the r200 for some reason. It happens =]

 

[ROOSKIE]

Recent purchase? Just wondering if supply chain issues caused Polk to make a very poorly chosen parts substition in the crossover.

end of November (Cyber Monday).
Unfortunately they are just being truly checked out for the 1st time now. (I did listen for maybe 20-30min when I 1st received them and didn't really like them then but figured it was just a bad listening day. I am just now finally listening but so far I regret waiting past the return window.)

 

[Transmaniacon]

I have to think there is an issue with the speakers, I don’t think the objective data really supports those impressions. It’s fine if you don’t like them! But I’m just confused.

 

[HooStat]

Are they toed in to the listening position or straight ahead? Might be something to play with on the Polks. The L200 had the potential to be dull according to @napilopez so maybe something to consider here as well. I realize they "should be" bright. But it if sounds that bad, it might actually be a defective speaker.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I appreciate that =]

And... no clue! I know you have plenty of speakers, so it's definitely surprising. I tested and measured these around the same time as the Genelec 8341B, JBL 4309, and Focal Solo 6 Be. The R200 were the most forward of the bunch, and from my recollection my second favorite behind the genelecs by a bit! I can only suggest giving the 3khz region a boost and cutting the 200-500 hz region if you hear a resonance there?

Erins measurements and tonality impressions of the R100 also seem to track with mine of thee r200, and they measure similarly.

If you have a chance, you could try giving the speaker a measure(aimed at tweeter) from about 1.5-2 feet, especially if you can get it a few feet away from walls(1m+ is better for directivity, but in my experience 2-3x baffle width tends to be enough for bookshelf speakers). That should get you very close to the quasi anechoic result and could confirm there's nothing amiss with your units. In one instance.

Once i received speakers where just one of the tweeters was dented and though the measurements weren't that off -- mainly the highs on that unit were reduced relative to the other by about 2 dB -- it sounded very dull, even after fixing the dent. A new pair fixed it.

But more likely, some combination of your preferences and your room just doesn't jive with the r200 for some reason. It happens =]

Yah, I am slowly designing some speakers and have been really deep in speakers here.
Wow, have I learned a lot over the past 18-24months. I have tried more speakers than most audio professionals and due to the various PEQ adjustments effectively many more.
I have the 4309's.
Those are actually my favorite speakers here. I will be keeping them as my personal enjoyment speakers once I reduce the stash. Due to not being quite right as a truly neutral speaker reference though, I also use the R3 and a few other speakers with ASR/EAC based PEQ applied as constant companions.
I will listen to the 4309's and Polks again tmrw.
I can measure the R200's either tmrw or thurs in room & gated appropriately. The outdoors is closed due to Minneapolis weather.(6f/-14c and falling)

I have to think there is an issue with the speakers, I don’t think the objective data really supports those impressions. It’s fine if you don’t like them! But I’m just confused.

I tried not to look to closely at the data before listening. Though obviously I looked enough to want to try them.
I am seeing now a very steep fall off at exactly 5k in the off axis.
In my space they are 8ish feet apart and I am 11-12 feet from the center point between them. The face of the speaker is 32" from the front wall.
The side wall reflection is less than a typical room due to symmetric openings on both side near the speakers. Rear wall is 8feet behind me.
The treble is just dying out here.
I will post some measurements soon.

Are they toed in to the listening position or straight ahead? Might be something to play with on the Polks. The L200 had the potential to be dull according to @napilopez so maybe something to consider here as well. I realize they "should be" bright. But it if sounds that bad, it might actually be a defective speaker.

They are toed in and cross just in front of the listening position. Maybe 5 degrees off axis. However if I listen side by side with my Gf which we do almost daily then one is direct on axis and the other maybe 10-15 degrees.

*and to be clear by bad sound I mean in comparison with typical considered excellent sound. They don't sound truly "bad", but they deff are not what I would call good.

Anyway I will post any measurements I take by Friday in case anyone is interested. Time to snow blow the drive.
Thanks all.

 

[afranta]

I wonder whether the angle/degree of toe-in makes a big difference given the R200's sensitivity to positioning? I have a pair and like them in my room. I've been playing around with positioning to try to get the most from them. Right now, they're 28 inches from the back wall, 19 inches from the side, 5 feet apart, 9 feet from the listening position, ear height, and toed-in to cross 6 inches behind the listening position.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I appreciate that =]

And... no clue! I know you have plenty of speakers, so it's definitely surprising. I tested and measured these around the same time as the Genelec 8341B, JBL 4309, and Focal Solo 6 Be. The R200 were the most forward of the bunch, and from my recollection my second favorite behind the genelecs by a bit! I can only suggest giving the 3khz region a boost and cutting the 200-500 hz region if you hear a resonance there?

Just took a bunch of measurements that I will post as soon as I get time to organize it all properly.
1st let me ask you a couple things and touch on some things. Sorry for the lettered list style and for anything else in a hurry at this time, also not all this is directed directly at you, rather just folks in general as well...
This all assumes mine are to spec.
A. To be clear I never said whether they were forward or not , I said dull and lifeless (think the 6k-20k region) no realism-vibrancy-space-"air"as the poets call it.
B. I think of forward as somewhere in the 800-4k region.
C. If you say they were the most forward, I am wondering if you were compensating for a lack of energy in the 5k-20k region by turning them up until that met your expectations and then the mids and bass would be relatively boosted and thus the mids might be easy perceived as forward?
(and the bass perceived as big*)In my room they also have a bit of a peak from 4-5k before they drop rapidly which could also make them sound bright if turned up despite having very weak energy above that peak.
D. When I do a comparison in room between speakers, I match them from 500-2500ish'HRZ at the listening position. Do you take in room measurements to make sure you are dealing with a constant level match or constant SPL?
E. These are truly dull, without question. I tested 7 or 8 other speakers today. The R200 had the lowest level in the treble at 1meter in room and at 60degrees off axis they are 16db down by 10k. The in room collective energy @the listening position is one serious droop starting at 5k. Prolly the lowest amount of treble energy ever recorded in my space by any speaker ever.
F. Some folks describe huge bass from this speaker which not apparent in my room. It is typicall good amount of 6.5" driver bass, so again I think folks are turning these way up to the treble energy they like and then the mids and bass are cranked.
G. *Speaking of that bass, it is a bit woolly. Sorry to say it but this speaker has issues that unless mine are a fools gold sample, belie the current reviews and data.
Anyway I will assemble measurements and screen shots later or tmrw.
Thanks!

 

[sdiver68]

Just took a bunch of measurements that I will post as soon as I get time to organize it all properly.
1st let me ask you a couple things and touch on some things. Sorry for the lettered list style and for anything else in a hurry at this time, also not all this is directed directly at you, rather just folks in general as well...
This all assumes mine are to spec.
A. To be clear I never said whether they were forward or not , I said dull and lifeless (think the 6k-20k region) no realism-vibrancy-space-"air"as the poets call it.
B. I think of forward as somewhere in the 800-4k region.
C. If you say they were the most forward, I am wondering if you were compensating for a lack of energy in the 5k-20k region by turning them up until that met your expectations and then the mids and bass would be relatively boosted and thus the mids might be easy perceived as forward?
(and the bass perceived as big*)In my room they also have a bit of a peak from 4-5k before they drop rapidly which could also make them sound bright if turned up despite having very weak energy above that peak.
D. When I do a comparison in room between speakers, I match them from 500-2500ish'HRZ at the listening position. Do you take in room measurements to make sure you are dealing with a constant level match or constant SPL?
E. These are truly dull, without question. I tested 7 or 8 other speakers today. The R200 had the lowest level in the treble at 1meter in room and at 60degrees off axis they are 16db down by 10k. The in room collective energy @the listening position is one serious droop starting at 5k. Prolly the lowest amount of treble energy ever recorded in my space by any speaker ever.
F. Some folks describe huge bass from this speaker which not apparent in my room. It is typicall good amount of 6.5" driver bass, so again I think folks are turning these way up to the treble energy they like and then the mids and bass are cranked.
G. *Speaking of that bass, it is a bit woolly. Sorry to say it but this speaker has issues that unless mine are a fools gold sample, belie the current reviews and data.
Anyway I will assemble measurements and screen shots later or tmrw.
Thanks!

Honestly your observations are not supported by the objective data. That should be end of story here.

Additionally, multiple reviewers and very experienced member/owners here have contradicted your subjective observations. Another end of story.

Try to find out whats wrong with your system.