I would rather pay twice as much or more for the R3. Honestly it was sort of frumpy sounding and dull to me. I found the ELAC DBR-62 to be underwhelming and lacking any "vibrancy", nor did it cause me to want to listen to music. I found the KEF R3 to be VASTLY more compatible with my senses. Howdy, you would be wise to try both in your own home at the same time if possible. Small speakers tend to do that.Īnd, I have a critical music ear, not an 'audiophile' ear. However, they do exhibit some compression on loud transients. Having the DBR62s, I can say that I am entirely satisfied after about a year of solid use. So if you must make a purchase decision by ratings here, there is about a 1 point of 10 difference in favor of the KEFs. I'm not bragging it's a calibration, not a contest. he seems to hear the same qualities as I do. (I also heard what he heard in my pair of RP600Ms, that have been sidelined.) Thus, I am tempted to 'calibrate' Amir's ratings against mine at about. I hear the same things that Amir heard in his review of this speaker. Out of interest, have you tried correcting with EQ?Click to expand.I wish I had a KEF dealer/showroom here that could demo the KEF R3s for me. But they measure how they measure, so you could make a future purchase decision based on a correlation of the measured data and what you hear. Doesn't make them bad, doesn't make them good. Of course we can't compare in room responses, so there's a big unknown, but it would appear from the different reactions that there is a difference in different people's sensitivity to the FR profile. Bit laid back in the upper mids, but fine for rock, EDM any genre really. Lots of buyers (me included) find them to be dynamic, hard hitting, punchy etc etc. They're rarely that significant, but serves to highlight how meaningless a subjective review is when attempting to share data. I'm always sceptical of the subjective evaluation that uses phrases like night and day, huge change etc etc. If you want this kind of sound, you could save half your money and pick up a pair of the Elac Debut 2.0 B6.2s.Įither this is an interesting observation of the different subjective response to a measurable characteristic, or another overblown hyperbole storm! I actually found the original Elac B6 to have more drive and energy. They simply do not have the bite, buzz, bark, crispness, snap, attack and growl that is necessary for pop/rock recordings to "pop" out of the speakers for an engaging listen. They are an exceptionally smooth, rounded sound that would be great for elevator music, smooth jazz, a capella. Bass was also one-note and indistinct at times, with much too early roll-off. But the instruments around and behind the singer are too muddy, not well outlined. With typical studio recordings where a singer is front in center, I can hear the vocals more present above the rest of the mix. Drum hits don't have the power they should so drum kits sound like they are caked in mud but you can clearly hear the hi-hats. I do hear quite a bit of a muffled sound. This confirms the laid-back and undynamic character of the sound I was hearing. I went back to the measurements Amir took to see if I could identify the problem and I see it's scooped in the 2.5khz-4.2khz region: Then the lack of treble energy which overall made these speakers sound extremely dull. My immediate impressions were the lack of rhythmic drive, dynamic punch and attack. I was driving them with the Benchmark AHB2. I listened to them on-axis only, as I do all my speakers, and without the tweeter grills. They were disappointing to say the least. I'm waiting for my custom speakers to be assembled (2 month lead time), so I needed a budget speaker option decent enough til I receive them. Purchased these recently based on Amir's speaker listening tests.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |