BrokenEnglishGuy
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,949
- Likes
- 1,172
Many of ASR members just EQ their R3 and add 2 subwoofers, you have a very Hi-End setup doing that.If there was an active R3, KEF would sell shitloads of them..
Many of ASR members just EQ their R3 and add 2 subwoofers, you have a very Hi-End setup doing that.If there was an active R3, KEF would sell shitloads of them..
From your images alone, neither is flat. They are all 'good' with no real spikes or dips. I wouldnt say the R7 has cleaner mids than the Metas, in fact the Meta is one of the speakers at any reasonable price range that I heard that has the cleanest mids.LS50m are not flat, it has some kind of BBC dip and a little more energy than normal at 5khz, general very balanced.
But it's all about taste too, the R series have different FR and also the ls50 OG and Metas, the thing is the R3 can play much louder and cleaner than the metas without IMD, because yo have a lot of headroom you can EQ them, which is pretty easy .
Personally i like waye more the warm FR from the R series towers, it has the warmer and clean mids that i like. I found the bookshelf lack of body and warmth.
It depends, the mids from R7 are thicc and smooth, the metas are more balance with less weight/brighter. The thing is the r3 are smooth but lack the weight/warmthFrom your images alone, neither is flat. They are all 'good' with no real spikes or dips. I wouldnt say the R7 has cleaner mids than the Metas, in fact the Meta is one of the speakers at any reasonable price range that I heard that has the cleanest mids.
All right…but where is the data that can back up the claim ?? I’ve read that before, but is always the same case, some individual reports the subjetive opinion that it “lacks weight/warmth” but never along data that correlates…for every one of those you have 10 other users enjoying them and not having the same complaint.The thing is the r3 are smooth but lack the weight/warmth.
I prefer a bit warm or smooth sounding speakers rather than a correct and I dislike bright speakers. Sorry for don't mention it. I would change what i said to:'' The thing is the r3 are smooth but lack the weight/warmth to my taste, and i don't wanna use subwoofers '', but the R3 change a lot with subwoofers. But the problem is I don't wanna subwoofers.All right…but where is the data that can back up the claim ?? I’ve read that before, but is always the same case, some individual reports the subjetive opinion that it “lacks weight/warmth” but never along data that correlates…for every one of those you have 10 other users enjoying them and not having the same complaint.
I’m sure the way Amir handled that review must have influenced this to some degree (first not liking them, then realizing a room mode was the cause, after that rectifying but updating the front page several months after). And also the fact this was one of the early Klippel measurements, and one of the first highest preference score outcomes, smoothest FR & Directivity, etc. The expectation on that particular one was really high, and no wonder a few people could have very high expectations bias and then be disappointed…I find it in fact natural. You don’t get to know the conditions that few people that complained did their assessments, of where did they came from…did they previously owned overemphasized “weight/warmth” speakers ? Were they used to a more analytical presentation?.
Other reviewers like Napilopez did like the speaker, Erin’s didn’t have a single flinch or complaint on his subjective evaluation…
Yeah but that's the fun thing.. you can boost the bass from KEF R3 using EQ, also the woofers in r3 give higher SPL than the woofer in the r300. I have the R300.Put the R3 next to the Meta and listen is all I can say. The R3 is not bad, but nothing great and Amir's review doesnt have a thing to do with assessment of people that have heard both side by side. The R3 is nowhere near perfect and is no better than the Metas objectively besides the obvious bass and distortion capabilities.
I think both are great speakers, that serves different purposes/strategies…otherwise KEF would only sell 1 instead of two models.Put the R3 next to the Meta and listen is all I can say. The R3 is not bad, but nothing great and Amir's review doesnt have a thing to do with assessment of people that have heard both side by side. The R3 is nowhere near perfect and is no better than the Metas objectively besides the obvious bass and distortion capabilities.
I'd pick the R3, with EQ+Microphone you can have a better FR than the stock, a guy here was using a mic and dual subs and got a very nice FR 20hz-20kh.…plus the lower overall distortion, lower IMD risk, more extended bass, etc. It seriously goes against facts and common sense.
Ive never claimed that one was greater than the other on charts. All Im saying is listen to both side by side like many who prefer the Metas did, then decide. Ive also made it very clear the R3 only has bass and SPL on its side, besides that, nothing else. Like a few here, I prefer the mids and treble of the Metas over the R3 anytime anyday. Oh, and whichever way you put it, the fr graph of the r3 is nothing to shout about. Objectively, its a good speaker, subjectively, no better than the Meta anything above lower frequencies is a mild way of describing the R3.I think both are great speakers, that serves different purposes/strategies…otherwise KEF would only sell 1 instead of two models.
But one must be blind to not spot which one has every single curve smoother than the other one…plus the lower overall distortion, lower IMD risk, more extended bass, etc. It seriously goes against facts and common sense.
View attachment 164582View attachment 164583
Another thing I can’t understand is how the first graph is “nothing great”, but the second one is great ? It’s quite contradictory. It would make more sense if both were “nothing great” since they are so similar (not my personal opinion)…
Never forget the fact when comparing two speaker, with very similar midrange-treble, but different bass extensions…since we don’t live in an ideal world…sometimes “better” is “worse”…meaning more bass capabilities (which is desirable) will indeed have higher possibilities of coupling or activating room modes/ standing waves…It happening more often than people think, reality is the mayority of online tests are not conducted with perfect room acoustics below 300Hz or DSP.
Wrong, you got less IMD for R3, it's has a lot less of IMD in comparison to the LS50m, because the mid woofer it's their waveguide.it very clear the R3 only has bass and SPL on its side, besides that, nothing else.
@Zvu Some of us are aware of your great contribution experimenting with the R300 on different forums. But have you had the opportunity to do the same with the R3, or at least long lasting auditioning ? Sometimes I’m confused as if you are talking about the old or new series bookshelf in this regard. Cheers
Uh. Well, I dislike the linton too unaccurate and lacks of control. If I want a lot of mid bass I can just EQ.I have close listening/comparing experience with Q100, Q350, LS50, LS50Meta, R300, R3, R7, Blade II. Out of mentioned i owned jusst R300 and LS50.
Never listened or compared R11, Reference 1 and Reference 3 - which are the speakers i'm also interested in.
And i had some weird comparisons too
I liked Wharfedale Lintons in midfield more when compared to LS50Meta Less accurate sound (it is obvious from first few tacts) but much more engaging.
The construction its very different in the R series 2018.@BrokenEnglishGuy Comparisons are done in two rooms of which one is my own. I decided that modifying is needed before i saw measurements because they didn't sound right - not the other way around. Then i made measurements shown below. Next part of the post isn't reply to you but to others that might be interested. I have no will to prove anything to you ( pics of my room or time line for how long did i listen every one of mentioned loudspeakers) just so that you'd think of something else to write about how and why i should like something i don't.
I'll try to explain with quasi-anechoic measurements why i think their woofers combined with relatively high crossover freequency to midrange (400-500Hz) might be the problem.
Here is impulse response of Kef R series midrange with 10ms time window.
View attachment 164718
As you can see, driver does its job untill about 3ms and then there is flat line (driver stopped working and silence is recorded) untill the first reflection arrives to the mic at 10ms. We have around 7ms of silence and driver stopped after 3ms - relatively fast.
In comparison, here is 6.5" woofer (used in my DIY three way loudspeaker)
View attachment 164719
It needed a bit longer to do get to rest and stopped playing around 4-5ms. Little slower than midrange but that's to be expected.Here is Kef R-2011 woofer (differences in construction are minimal compared to R-2018 woofer).
View attachment 164720
WTF It never came to a complete hault even when first reflection arrived at 10.3ms - i never saw anything like this except in few car subs that also use two part cone (oval and cone part glued).
Disclaimer: I am not a loudspeaker driver design expert nor do i have some skills in FEA-FEM software. My opinion (if it has any worth) is that at Kef they know all this and that's the reason Reference series woofers have hard polymer cage attached to the voice coil and oval part of the cone - it makes for rigid connection with no aditional ringing. R series are cheaper and they had to make a perceivable distinction between chaeper and much more expensive line of products - which is ok. But here we have some that are idealizing the sound basedon incomplete measurements before putting the darn thing nex to some other loudspeaker and actually listen to it
With the measurements made by Amir and Erin, they only scratched the surface. Not to mention the absence of CSD, in the measurements they give. As well as the absence of BR measurements on Erin's measurements. This is just a part of the picture that is very complex. We still don't know much about quantifying what we hear. I’ve had a chance to listen to the Kef r300 and it sounds pretty “in absolute terms” bad. The grading system used here is incomplete and outdated, therefore unusable.The construction its very different in the R series 2018.
In fact the new woofer came with noticeable less distortion, and can handle much higher SPL, about the ring stuff, it has a such low level.
What are the incomplete measurements that you said? The one that you posted? Or the klippel measurements from Erin or Amir? Kef r3 review.
Absolutely this. Unless people are testing them blind, everyone has an opinion and their experience is not worth anything to me. I'm getting Headfi vibes reading half of the posts in here. With how people talk about how big a difference there's supposed to be, it reminds me of Headfi meets when people told me their cable makes things "smoother" and their $10000 amp makes a big difference. Feel like I'm being gaslit when I hear basically no difference between things or they're only barely there.Assuming that the marketing works, which it does, you can just toss out any sighted comparisons. How could someone not expect and listen for something special in a speaker made with "Metamaterial Absorption Technology"?
These are two speakers that should sound nearly identical if paired with subs and played below the levels where the LS50M would noticeably distort. Without subs, the R3 obviously will have a little bit better bass response. That anyone would think they hear +/- 1 or 2 db scattered about when listening to actual music puts them in the same golden ears club that's rejected here. These are both nearly as flat as high end active studio monitors! Tecnogadget mentioned it, but any difference in room interactions would in all likelihood be greater than the differences in the speakers themselves.