Revel f206 versus kef r7

[Alexanderc]

Same here, no sub is planned in my livin so far.
Regarding dynaudio evoke 50, I would be glad to have your opinion on measurements (c.f. #54) . I am not sure how they compare with soundstage measurements of r7. I am not an expert but it seems the methodology is different at "Newport test labs"

In the US the Evoke 50 is priced the same as the Revel F208, so quite a bit more than the F206 or Kef r7. The Dynaudio Evoke 30 would be about the same where I am.

There isn’t enough information in the measurements for me. I would want to see off-axis measurements. If the bass on these is really that extended that would be very impressive.

 

[Alexanderc]

This has a bit more information: https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/3138-dynaudio-evoke-50#laboratory

 

[Novak]

This has a bit more information: https://audio.com.pl/testy/stereo/kolumny-glosnikowe/3138-dynaudio-evoke-50#laboratory

Thanks for sharing!
The bump in the low frequency area is quite impressive... Don't know what to think...

 

[echopraxia]

Any conclusions here? I’m also really curious about the KEF R11 vs Revel F208 comparison. The KEFs are IMO such aesthetically pleasing speakers, and measure exceptionally well too it seems. My impression is that the Revel frequency response might be slightly preferred, but if the KEF were equalized, I wonder how close they would come in overall preference.

 

[jonfitch]

Any conclusions here? I’m also really curious about the KEF R11 vs Revel F208 comparison. The KEFs are IMO such aesthetically pleasing speakers, and measure exceptionally well too it seems. My impression is that the Revel frequency response might be slightly preferred, but if the KEF were equalized, I wonder how close they would come in overall preference.

I think KEF will generally be preferred out of the box due the greater bass extension. When comparing spec sheet frequency responses, it seems relative to the actual measurements, KEF tends to under-report actual extension quite a bit versus Revel. It could just be Revel is reporting in-room measurements in some specific fixed room they have versus KEF reporting anechoic. A good example is the LS50 (official spec -3db at 79hz) versus M105 (officially -3db at 60hz). Yet in actuality the LS50 has a few db more extension than the M105 in anechoic measurements, and if you hear them side by side the LS50 clearly has more bass extension.

Then once you account for the bass difference you will have to just decide whether you like the slightly wider horizontal response of the Revel versus the smaller but more uniform dispersion of the KEFs.

 

[echopraxia]

I think KEF will generally be preferred out of the box due the greater bass extension. When comparing spec sheet frequency responses, it seems relative to the actual measurements, KEF tends to under-report actual extension quite a bit versus Revel. It could just be Revel is reporting in-room measurements in some specific fixed room they have versus KEF reporting anechoic. A good example is the LS50 (official spec -3db at 79hz) versus M105 (officially -3db at 60hz). Yet in actuality the LS50 has a few db more extension than the M105 in anechoic measurements, and if you hear them side by side the LS50 clearly has more bass extension.

Then once you account for the bass difference you will have to just decide whether you like the slightly wider horizontal response of the Revel versus the smaller but more uniform dispersion of the KEFs.

Interesting. I ask because having sold a bunch of my smaller speakers now, I’m in the market again for some really nice passive towers.

Some of the best options here look to be the KEF R11 and Revel F208 or discount/sale F228be (I’m not sure if the R11’s has any dealers who go much below MSRP as Revel/JBL often can?). It’s really hard trying to decide which would be better from measurements, based on the KEF R3 vs Revel F208’s ASR reviews.

 

[Scgorg]

An important thing to note in cases such as this is that there may potentially be issues that aren't normally accounted for. If we go by spinorama logic then the KEF with it's coaxial driver seems like an obvious choice, seeing as it can simply be EQ'd to fit whatever preferred target. The problem in this case is that there hasn't been any good research on the effect of wide vs narrow dispersion and how it affects listener preference in a typical domestic space (AFAIK, please correct me if this is wrong), which is obviously an issue, because OP might prefer the wider dispersion of the Revels compared to the more uniform off-axis behaviour of the KEF. There's also the issue of intermodulation distortion in coaxial designs, and as we all know intermodulation distortion is significantly more audible than harmonic distortion. Even if the KEF is a very well engineered speaker it's not out of the question that the IMD could have negative effects on the listening experience.

As obvious and probably impossible as this is: the only way to truly know the right choice is to listen to both of them, preferably in your own room.

 

[jonfitch]

Interesting. I ask because having sold a bunch of my smaller speakers now, I’m in the market again for some really nice passive towers.

Some of the best options here look to be the KEF R11 and Revel F208 or discount/sale F228be (I’m not sure if the R11’s has any dealers who go much below MSRP as Revel/JBL often can?). It’s really hard trying to decide which would be better from measurements, based on the KEF R3 vs Revel F208’s ASR reviews.

In my opinion Revel speakers are designed with home theater first in mind IIRC, most of them have bass roll-off that's much earlier than your typical speaker of equivalent size, as they are really designed around integration with subwoofers rather than being run full-range themselves. I've owned the Ultima2 series (Salon2, Gem2, Voice2, etc). They are very bass shy relative to their volume compared to most other brands, and I've always run them with subs. While I've never owned any of the KEF floorstanders, I do have the LS50, R3, and Reference 1. I feel these speakers can be run without subs as they have good bass extension for their size. It's not the bassiest by far--I think Dynaudio speakers, and some other ID brands I've owned previously like Salk, or Dana Audio are generally tuned for more bass on a relative volume basis, but KEFs are definitely above average.

 

[Alexanderc]

@Novak — made any decision yet?

 

[Novak]

@Novak — made any decision yet?

I am almost ready to buy, but likely not one of the speakers evocated here.
Revel f206 have not enough bass extension and I don't want to use a sub.
I had the opportunity to have a listen to the Kef r7 and was not as much impressed as with the dynaudio evoke 50 ( listened in same environment). Then I had a look at their measurements on the link you sent and was disappointed. So I asked the brand, and they said that audio.com.pl measurements seem to measure the room more than the speakers... Obviously influenced by all this, I went to another dealer and tried them once more. I did not enjoy as much as first time... So I am not going to buy one of these 3.
I am going to buy amphion argon 7 LS which I discovered by coincidence and was impressed subjectively. The brand sent me the measurement attached which seem good enough to me. So I will give it a try. Feel free to comment.
Hoping this help.
N

 

[bumelant]

Amphion is a reputable brand, so likely a good choice. Yet, I would like to point out that how the speakers will sound in your particular room may still be completely different story. You need to consider reflections from walls, ceilings etc. and how much space you will leave behind them... Every speaker will work differently at angle.
So to put it shortly, very often the speakers that sound well at the dealers, are not even close at your home, and vice versa. This is still not to mention electronics. I'm using KEF Reference 1, which are very good match for my room with huge windows on the sides sonically as they are rather flat all the way up, however it wasn't until I discovered Hypex monoblocks that I was happy with them (previously using Hegel that on paper was the same wattage), because they are very transparent and just seem dry with inappropriate gear.

 

[tecnogadget]

In my opinion Revel speakers are designed with home theater first in mind IIRC, most of them have bass roll-off that's much earlier than your typical speaker of equivalent size, as they are really designed around integration with subwoofers rather than being run full-range themselves. I've owned the Ultima2 series (Salon2, Gem2, Voice2, etc). They are very bass shy relative to their volume compared to most other brands, and I've always run them with subs. While I've never owned any of the KEF floorstanders, I do have the LS50, R3, and Reference 1. I feel these speakers can be run without subs as they have good bass extension for their size. It's not the bassiest by far--I think Dynaudio speakers, and some other ID brands I've owned previously like Salk, or Dana Audio are generally tuned for more bass on a relative volume basis, but KEFs are definitely above average.

That’s a nice KEF collection, good for you !
I have the R3’s and like you said, the bass does not disappoint, they can hit hard and very low.
I’m very interested in a subjective comparison between the R3 and Reference 1. The Reference’s build quality and measurements leaves me drooling.
I like to think one could cheat performance...so basically get a similar response/quality from the R3’s using PEQ as the Reference 1 in stock form without PEQ, trying to copy the same down tilting.
Have you tried such comparison ?? And could you tell us how do they stack up in stock form (difference/similarity) ?

 

[aarons915]

An important thing to note in cases such as this is that there may potentially be issues that aren't normally accounted for. If we go by spinorama logic then the KEF with it's coaxial driver seems like an obvious choice, seeing as it can simply be EQ'd to fit whatever preferred target. The problem in this case is that there hasn't been any good research on the effect of wide vs narrow dispersion and how it affects listener preference in a typical domestic space (AFAIK, please correct me if this is wrong), which is obviously an issue, because OP might prefer the wider dispersion of the Revels compared to the more uniform off-axis behaviour of the KEF. There's also the issue of intermodulation distortion in coaxial designs, and as we all know intermodulation distortion is significantly more audible than harmonic distortion. Even if the KEF is a very well engineered speaker it's not out of the question that the IMD could have negative effects on the listening experience.

As obvious and probably impossible as this is: the only way to truly know the right choice is to listen to both of them, preferably in your own room.

Not just coaxials, any passive speaker with smooth directivity can be EQ'd to be much better, of course you need CTA-2034 style measurements like this site provides to properly EQ. Much of Dr. Toole's research over the years has shown that wide dispersion is preferred to narrow but it seems much of that is based on a single speaker in mono, that difference is very small in stereo. Also, just to clarify, IMD distortion is only an issue in 2-way coaxials, due to the larger cone excursions, the R series and Reference are 3 way and don't have this problem.

 

[Beave]

I am almost ready to buy, but likely not one of the speakers evocated here.
Revel f206 have not enough bass extension and I don't want to use a sub.
I had the opportunity to have a listen to the Kef r7 and was not as much impressed as with the dynaudio evoke 50 ( listened in same environment). Then I had a look at their measurements on the link you sent and was disappointed. So I asked the brand, and they said that audio.com.pl measurements seem to measure the room more than the speakers... Obviously influenced by all this, I went to another dealer and tried them once more. I did not enjoy as much as first time... So I am not going to buy one of these 3.
I am going to buy amphion argon 7 LS which I discovered by coincidence and was impressed subjectively. The brand sent me the measurement attached which seem good enough to me. So I will give it a try. Feel free to comment.
Hoping this help.
N

Dynaudio told you that? I don't think they're correct about the audio.com.pl measurements.

The measurements appear to be similar to Stereophile's measurement technique, in which gated response down to a few hundred Hz is stitched together with close-mic (near field) response for the bass.

As with Stereophile's measurements, the near field bass response doesn't acount for the baffle (it assumes infinite baffle), so you get a hump in the bass response.

They don't appear to me to be in-room responses at all.

 

[Scgorg]

Not just coaxials, any passive speaker with smooth directivity can be EQ'd to be much better, of course you need CTA-2034 style measurements like this site provides to properly EQ. Much of Dr. Toole's research over the years has shown that wide dispersion is preferred to narrow but it seems much of that is based on a single speaker in mono, that difference is very small in stereo. Also, just to clarify, IMD distortion is only an issue in 2-way coaxials, due to the larger cone excursions, the R series and Reference are 3 way and don't have this problem.

Yes, any speaker with smooth directivity can be EQ'd. What I was referring to specifically was rather the benefit that coaxials typically have in the vertical plane. While the harman brand speakers (and many other non-coaxials) have excellent directivity they're still not a match for a good coaxial like the KEFs or Genelecs in the vertical plane. It's a small nitpick but depending on the room it can have a very audible impact on sound quality.

As for IMD, a 3-way coax will still have higher IMD than a similar 3-way non-coaxial speaker since even if a dedicated mid/treble coax will have less excursion (and thus less modulation of the tweeter's signal) it still modulates the tweeter's output more than what is typical (especially at higher listening levels), at least this has always been my understanding. This is not to say that KEF coaxes don't measure excellently in this regard, because the only IMD measurements I have seen of a KEF have been very impressive, but to say they are better than a competently designed 3-way is not something I can find any basis for.

As a comparison, both the KEF reference 1 and Neumann KH420 have been measured by Anselm Goertz. Soundandrecording.de for the Neumann measurements and fidelity-online.de for the KEF measurements. These speakers are similarly priced, though the neumann is larger by a decent margin. The Neumann quite clearly outclasses the KEF in IMD. If we want to compare to something that is smaller then the Neumann KH310 has similar levels of IMD for significantly less money and in a smaller package.

The Revels having less IMD than a similarly priced KEF is purely speculation on my part, since I've never seen IMD measurements on a Revel speaker before. The only KEF measurements I have seen for IMD are the reference line, which I assume perform better than the lower end line in this regard. Anyway, OP definitely shouldn't buy speakers based on IMD. I'm rather just stating that it's a possibility that the IMD difference between the KEF and the Revel may be audible. The vertical performance is probably a bigger incentive to go for the KEF than whatever minor IMD difference.

 

[aarons915]

As for IMD, a 3-way coax will still have higher IMD than a similar 3-way non-coaxial speaker since even if a dedicated mid/treble coax will have less excursion (and thus less modulation of the tweeter's signal) it still modulates the tweeter's output more than what is typical (especially at higher listening levels), at least this has always been my understanding. This is not to say that KEF coaxes don't measure excellently in this regard, because the only IMD measurements I have seen of a KEF have been very impressive, but to say they are better than a competently designed 3-way is not something I can find any basis for.

A couple points, 1st of all I currently use the LS50, which are much more prone to IMD distortion than most other speakers and I've never heard it and I've compared the LS50 blind to the Revel M105 and KEF R3. Just as a test I moved my crossover up to a point that the midwoofer in the LS50 hardly vibrates and it was at about 200Hz, so the 320 and 400Hz crossovers respectively in the Reference and new R series shouldn't be a problem at all in that regard. It also doesn't matter much if they measure better than a Neumann 420 considering its woofer size, all that really matters is whether the IMD distortion is audible and at what SPL level, something I haven't seen much research on.

The other issue is the actual IMD test, the standard is something like a 60Hz tone and 7khz, the problem with that is most ported speakers won't have much cone movement at 60Hz, I feel a better test would be at 100Hz(usually the lowest point before the port starts reducing cone excursion) and a sweep from 100-20000Hz to check for the worst case IMD distortion.

 

[cspadijer]

Funny seeing this thread. I am setting up a home theater and I have narrowed down my search to the KEF R7 and Revel F206 as well to use for the Front Left, Front Center, and Front Right (LCR). I plan on putting them behind an acoustically transparent projector screen and build them into the wall so esthetics don't matter.
Two concerns I have:
1.) From what I have read about Dolby ATMOS setup, the tweeter of your fronts and surrounds should be at the height of the listeners ear. Most speakers have the tweater at the top, but the KEF R7s have the tweeter in the middle and therefore are not at ear height. In my Dolby Atmos setup all the other surrounds have their tweeter at ear height. Any concern with the high/mid range driver being lower?
2.) I am also concerned they are a little undersized for my theater room. It is 22.5'(L) x 15.5' (W) x 8' (H) in the main area, but has an adjoining section with another 15.5'(L) x 6.5'(W) x 8'(H). I plan on dual 12" subs. Is there any calculator that exists that helps size the LF driver in a speaker to room size? E.g. 6.5" driver is for xxx cubic foot room. 8" driver for xxx. 10" driver etc...

 

[Bear123]

The only thing that really matters for speakers is distance to the listening position, which is used to calculate SPL capability. For subs, they see the entire space. A pair of 12" subs will likely be inadequate for accurate reproduction unless listening levels are very low. I'd recommend at *minimum*, a very capable pair of ported 15" subs such as Hsu VTF15, Rythmik FV15HP, or Monolith M15.

 

[steve59]

After selling my horrible measuring Vienna Acoustics Beethovens I bought the Kef R107/2, Revel f52, salon 1 and the VA Strauss. I then went back online and found another pair of Beethovens (2000-04 era) to replace the ones I sold. Whats the point? The original beethovens replaced a pair of Kef R105/3's, another excellent measuring speaker.

I think in my room having a flat mid range overloads the room and this masks much of the subtleties...Song after song my laboratory bred speakers sounded good then the VA's sound amazing, like turning up the contrast on a tv more colors. I ended up spending many times what those speakers cost to get their qualities with more headroom and bass.

I got lucky finding a semi affordable speaker that made me want to listen to every song in my library over again. Buying Revel or Kef is like buying a microwave, they'll do the job and not screw things up, but once you know what you want these speakers will reveal their limitations.

 

[echopraxia]

After selling my horrible measuring Vienna Acoustics Beethovens I bought the Kef R107/2, Revel f52, salon 1 and the VA Strauss. I then went back online and found another pair of Beethovens (2000-04 era) to replace the ones I sold. Whats the point? The original beethovens replaced a pair of Kef R105/3's, another excellent measuring speaker.

I think in my room having a flat mid range overloads the room and this masks much of the subtleties...Song after song my laboratory bred speakers sounded good then the VA's sound amazing, like turning up the contrast on a tv more colors. I ended up spending many times what those speakers cost to get their qualities with more headroom and bass.

I got lucky finding a semi affordable speaker that made me want to listen to every song in my library over again. Buying Revel or Kef is like buying a microwave, they'll do the job and not screw things up, but once you know what you want these speakers will reveal their limitations.

What limitations are you speaking of? Sure they have them, but I’m not sure what you’re exactly referring to here.

If your room has an eccentric response to speakers, I think you’d get better results EQ’ing really good speakers, than trying to find some niche speaker “voicing” that happens to cater well to your room.