Quick KEF R3 vs Reference 201/2 vs LS50 measurements

[sfdoddsy]

I've always wanted to try the KEF Reference 201/2 due to the superb measurements from Stereophile and Soundstage, so on a whim snapped up a pair to compare to my R3s and LS50s.

I didn't do full measurements due to an angry wife, but managed to sneak in a quick set using my Anthem ARC. Thus the graphs are an average of 5 positions bunched around my listening position.

They were pretty much what I expected, except for the poorer than anticipated bass extension of the 201/2s. The red line is raw response, the green what ARC would do to fix it.

 

[aarons915]

Nice have you had a chance to compare any of them yet head to head?

 

[sfdoddsy]

Yes, I have listened to them all side by side.

My impressions follow the measurements quite closely.

The LS50 is very good, but lacking in bass and dynamics if used without a sub. It is also, comparatively, a little rough around the edges.

The R3 has really good bass for a bookshelf speaker, is very smooth and with no obvious flaws. If anything, it lacks a little vavavoom (a technical term).

The 201/2 sounds like a bigger, more sophisticated, more accurate and much more dynamic LS50.

If I didn't have decent subs, and the ability gently boost and EQ the bass I would probably keep the R3s.

But since I do and can, I am keeping the 201/2s. I like the sound as much and sometimes more than the R3s, and I think they look cooler (another technical term).

 

[goldenears]

Thanks for your posts, sfdoddsy.

I'm curious if you've tried any floorstanders, and what is your opinion of them? Do you feel they "fill the room" in any way more than a good standmount crossed over to subs?

 

[sfdoddsy]

I have floorstanders now. They are Davone Solos which are very much like Revel F208s.

They certainly fill the room better without subs. I'm not sure there is much difference with properly setup and EQed subs.

Basically I preferred the aesthetics.

 

[goldenears]

Wow, those are beautiful looking speakers! They're like sculptures.

Would go great with the stereotypical audiophile Eames chair.

 

[jonfitch]

It's a shame they took away the curved cabinets. Cost was too high. Looks like the same is coming for Revel.

I always wondered how they would stand against the Reference 1s, with the bass difference corrected.

 

[paulgyro]

Yes, I have listened to them all side by side.

My impressions follow the measurements quite closely.

The LS50 is very good, but lacking in bass and dynamics if used without a sub. It is also, comparatively, a little rough around the edges.

The R3 has really good bass for a bookshelf speaker, is very smooth and with no obvious flaws. If anything, it lacks a little vavavoom (a technical term).

The 201/2 sounds like a bigger, more sophisticated, more accurate and much more dynamic LS50.

If I didn't have decent subs, and the ability gently boost and EQ the bass I would probably keep the R3s.

But since I do and can, I am keeping the 201/2s. I like the sound as much and sometimes more than the R3s, and I think they look cooler (another technical term).

Crazy I found this threads as I've been trying to figure out if I would want to get one of these three Kef's to replace my Forte IIIs.

Seems the LS50 would be the least viable options. Both the used 201/2 pair with stands for $2200 or white R3 for $1325. Thoughts?

 

[Ata]

I can't see how you could go wrong with KEF R3 if your space is not too large. You should only go 201/2 if you prefer the looks more.

 

[paulgyro]

I can't see how you could go wrong with KEF R3 if your space is not too large. You should only go 201/2 if you prefer the looks more.

My room is 3000 cubic feet, 22x18, 8.5 feet listening distance. Is that too big?

 

[Ata]

I think they would be fine if you are listening at 85db average, 100db peak and have a subwoofer to cover the low end.

I am using LS50M in a similarly sized room and distance without issues, though at lower volumes of 75-80db average and 95db peaks.

 

[Zvu]

Yes, I have listened to them all side by side.

My impressions follow the measurements quite closely.

The LS50 is very good, but lacking in bass and dynamics if used without a sub. It is also, comparatively, a little rough around the edges.

The R3 has really good bass for a bookshelf speaker, is very smooth and with no obvious flaws. If anything, it lacks a little vavavoom (a technical term).

The 201/2 sounds like a bigger, more sophisticated, more accurate and much more dynamic LS50.

If I didn't have decent subs, and the ability gently boost and EQ the bass I would probably keep the R3s.

But since I do and can, I am keeping the 201/2s. I like the sound as much and sometimes more than the R3s, and I think they look cooler (another technical term).

You are not the first one who found R series lacking a little vavoom ( lower midrange clarity).

 

[MarkWinston]

I definitely prefer how the Metas sound over the R3. The R3 sounds little too flat and boring to me. Uninspiring and dull are the words I would use to describe the R3. I heard speakers that measure almost the same tonally and they dont sound like that. The Metas on the other hand are more of a midcentric kind of speaker, injecting life in to every kind of music it plays. Listen before buying, its quite a big investment to blindly buy a speaker costing this much, the Metas and R3 do not sound anything alike at all. Metas and a pair of subs anytime anyday.

 

[Ata]

I definitely prefer how the Metas sound over the R3. The R3 sounds little too flat and boring to me. Uninspiring and dull are the words I would use to describe the R3. I heard speakers that measure almost the same tonally and they dont sound like that. The Metas on the other hand are more of a midcentric kind of speaker, injecting life in to every kind of music it plays. Listen before buying, its quite a big investment to blindly buy a speaker costing this much, the Metas and R3 do not sound anything alike at all. Metas and a pair of subs anytime anyday.

I went the same route and am not disappointed. I had the luxury of auditioning LS50M and R3 side by side in a very large room. While LS50M certainly has less bass and science tells us less SPL and more distortion, subjectively they sounded better to my ear. A nice side benefit is that for the price of R3 one could pair the LS50M with a good sub and get an even better bass than R3 w/o sub.

Three years ago, the situation was quite the opposite -- KEF R300 was running circles around LS50OG, to my ears.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I went the same route and am not disappointed. I had the luxury of auditioning LS50M and R3 side by side in a very large room. While LS50M certainly has less bass and science tells us less SPL and more distortion, subjectively they sounded better to my ear. A nice side benefit is that for the price of R3 one could pair the LS50M with a good sub and get an even better bass than R3 w/o sub.

Three years ago, the situation was quite the opposite -- KEF R300 was running circles around LS50OG, to my ears.

It's all about tastes too. I have the R300 and the R7, listenened the references and LS50 too, and i prefer the R series to my R300, the r300 just sound brighter and uncontroller when the R7 have way more weight and smothness in the sound than my R300 but the R7 have a little more bass( +1dB ) in 20hz-400hz region more than the R3 which its the difference for a little warmer sounding. Also R series have a narrow dispersion, so its better to have these speakers in a very big room, you wanna hear the reflections that may make the speaker sound alive..

The voice for R series its flat speaker with some smoothness, the bad recording don't gonna sound poorly, that's the reason of that voice + very good narrow dispersion, the best FR from R3 its at 10 to 20° toe-in, on-axis may sound dull.

You can always EQ the speakers to your taste. In my case i find the R series voicing at 10-20° just in the right point.



I don't know any FR which can make the speaker very alive, smooth, warm, crisp, make the bad recording sound good and the great recording sound nice too..

 

[Ata]

Yes, there is no question that the current Rn series is better than previous generation Rm00 series, although I don't think we have Klippel measurements nor preference rating to confirm. It is just that LS50M is that much more better than LS50OG than R3 compared to R300.

It could be that R3 Meta will be a significant improvement, maybe it is in the cards between now and end of 2021... Still waiting for that new KEF product (LS60?) to materialise.

 

[Zvu]

I'm not sure that difference (liveliness) of LS50 compared to the (dullness) of R series can be explained through frequency response amplitude variations.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Yes, there is no question that the current Rn series is better than previous generation Rm00 series, although I don't think we have Klippel measurements nor preference rating to confirm. It is just that LS50M is that much more better than LS50OG than R3 compared to R300.

It could be that R3 Meta will be a significant improvement, maybe it is in the cards between now and end of 2021... Still waiting for that new KEF product (LS60?) to materialise.

It depends.
There is people who know how to use the eq and turn his ls50 into ls50m FR.
The thing is, you can change the R3 FR too
And yes, we have the klippel measurements from both, R3 and L50M

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I'm not sure that difference (liveliness) of LS50 compared to the (dullness) of R series can be explained through frequency response amplitude variations.

For me yes. Klippel confirm 100%. On axis and at 10° you have more brightness than you want, but at the same time less bass and lower mids because you only got more brightness on axis, that brightness over everything make the speaker sounds dull, but if you put the speaker at 20° sound better

my R7 on axis sounds dull and bright, but if I put the speaker with toe-in which Jack confirm works the best at 20°, the speaker sounds warmer and smoother.
The thing is on axis you are only hear more brightness, not even more extension, the ls50m on axis FR its cute

 

[MarkWinston]

It depends.
There is people who know how to use the eq and turn his ls50 into ls50m FR.
The thing is, you can change the R3 FR too
And yes, we have the klippel measurements from both, R3 and L50M

Changing the FR doesnt turn the OG LS50 into a Meta. I wished it could because I own the OG LS50 and Im now seriously looking to get the Metas. I borrowed my brother in law's Metas for 2 weeks and had it next to my LS50s in my house and it was no competition at all. I dont know how some reviewers can say the differences are small, to me they are pretty different.