KEF Reference3 vs b&w 804 D3

[PENG]

Will the Lexus play louder than the Toyota?

My Lexus LX570 has the Mark Levinson sound system, but while driving (wind noise, road noise, car noise), it might as well be a JBL system in a Toyota.

The Lexus will have a better aesthetic and a quieter interior cabin, though.

Camry L has a basic non JBL (generic no name from Parts Express I guess) 6 speaker system. The ES350 top package has the ML 15 speakers 835W system, that's like comparing the R900 to the reference 3.

I'm sure Eargiant will have a few words to say about that.

He already said he would take even the 805 D3 over the LS50 that has better measurements, but we also already know he is in the trust your ears camp.

But I definitely agree with you. Not that I think the LS50 sounds better than the 804D or 805D, but because there is no way even the $30K 800D3 can sound as good as 2 nice subs in terms of the BASS.

Yep, I did say "two nice" subs, just to make it easy for you. You get to define "nice".

But the 805D + 2 nice subs will probably subjectively sound about as good as the LS50 + 2 nice subs, even if the 805D doesn't measure well and has a gigantic 7dB peak around 10kHz - unless you have hypersensitivity to high frequency.

Absolutely, I heard the 805 original D too and they sounded great. It is also a highly subjective thing if one decided not to go along with specs that are verifiable by measurements.

 

[Turk]

Most of the time I use the Parasound Halo A21 and Cambridge Audio 840a preamp. The A21 runs in class A for the first 8-10W and the CA is class A. I typically listen to spl of at least 10 dB below reference, the amp output would be fractional with peaks to no more than 25 W at any time. Those 2X8" drivers are very bass capable, much better than I expect based on their humble specs. The highs are not as transparent as my Focal 1028Be, but at half the price I am not complaining. For a more brilliance sound, I would probably give the 804 D2 (never heard the D3) the edge, but that's subjective, if you prefer the so called "warm" sound, you may actually prefer the R900. The reference 3 sounded closer to the B&W, but I am put off by the higher distortions in the low band below around 120 Hz.

They come with grilles and I find no reason to remove them. They are easily to remove and replace because they are held by hidden magnets.

For something on the neutral and accuracy side, aside from KEF, you may also check out Revels, such as the F208 that should be able to take the expected abuse better.

https://revelspeakers.com/productdetail/~/product/f208.html

Stereophile's JA seem to like it, but that's subjective, the measurements look great though.

"Summing up the Revel's measured performance is easy: In every way, this is textbook loudspeaker design. It's no wonder that Erick Lichte liked this speaker as much as he did.—John Atkinson"

Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/revel-performa3-f208-loudspeaker-measurements#dLvY6jgeDrU6vsK5.99

Another review with measurements:

https://hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/floor-standing/revel-f208-floor-standing-speakers-review/

I listened to them almost side by side with the KEF reference, ended up buying the R900.

You said that the R900 is a little “warmer” of a sound. Do you think it is as warm of a sound as the martin Logan motion series?

Do you also have the R600c center to go with it? One review I read said that male vocals on the center channel were a little to warm sounding. But I can only find one person that has said that.

 

[PENG]

You said that the R900 is a little “warmer” of a sound. Do you think it is as warm of a sound as the martin Logan motion series?

Do you also have the R600c center to go with it? One review I read said that male vocals on the center channel were a little to warm sounding. But I can only find one person that has said that.

I have only listened to ML speakers in Bestbuy stores but I don't remember which models so I am not quality to comment on them.

My R900s are for one of my two channel systems but I am familiar with the R600c. They don't have the larger 8" drivers but I am sure they can still take more abuse that the 804 D3.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have only listened to ML speakers in Bestbuy stores but I don't remember which models so I am not quality to comment on them.

I auditioned the $5,000 ML Vantage, which I thought sounded pretty good, but still probably not as good as the DefTech BP7000 or BP7001 when comparing.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

He already said he would take even the 805 D3 over the LS50 that has better measurements, but we also already know he is in the trust your ears camp.

Well, he does call himself Eargiant.

But I bet GoldenEar speakers sound even better. Who could beat golden ears? I mean, come on!

 

[PENG]

Well, he does call himself Eargiant.

But I bet GoldenEar speakers sound even better. Who could beat golden ears? I mean, come on!

I keep hearing good things about them but have never listened to any of their models . I will not buy speakers again without seeing measurements by reputable benches. Measurements are as important as ears , golden or not .

 

[Turk]

I auditioned the $5,000 ML Vantage, which I thought sounded pretty good, but still probably not as good as the DefTech BP7000 or BP7001 when comparing.

I’m currently using the defTechBp8060 for rear speakers which are awesome for rears!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I’m currently using the defTechBp8060 for rear speakers which are awesome for rears!

The BP8060ST actually has pretty good on-axis FR from 40Hz-8kHz, which is +2dB/-2dB, goes up to +3dB at 10kHz, which is still pretty good.

They are overkill for surround speakers, unless you're using the LFE inputs on them for the active 10" woofers.

 

[Turk]

The BP8060ST actually has pretty good on-axis FR from 40Hz-8kHz, which is +2dB/-2dB, goes up to +3dB at 10kHz, which is still pretty good.

They are overkill for surround speakers, unless you're using the LFE inputs on them for the active 10" woofers.

They were left over from an old setup and they don’t tip over as easy as something on a stand would from a 2 year old.

I cross them at 40hz. I already have 3 subs in the room. Didn’t think I needed 2 more.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

They were left over from an old setup and they don’t tip over as easy as something on a stand would from a 2 year old.

I cross them at 40hz. I already have 3 subs in the room. Didn’t think I needed 2 more.

Well, too much is better than too little in this case.

 

[<eargiant]

Well, he does call himself Eargiant.

But I bet GoldenEar speakers sound even better. Who could beat golden ears? I mean, come on!

Errr, it's "less than" eargiant. You're forgetting the <.

I will have a pair of LS50 in here sooner or later. Have always wanted to play around with them for a bit but have been put off by the lack of a grill. I may use them in a smaller room downstairs where I think they'd be perfect. I have some lonely Atacama Reference stands waiting for mates.

One thing I will say about the LS50 it is probably one of the most bought and resold speakers out there. Reminds me of the original Pioneer BS-22's as far as hype (owned those too as well as Dennis' version). I'm not implying that the LS50s are bad, just that purchasers often expected more out of them based on the rave reviews.

I use my 805D2 with one sub (REL S/2) in a ~20 x 12 room. Very dynamic and convincing indeed. I did not want the floor stander versions in that room, my intended placement would have made them boomy or bass heavy. The stand-mount/sub option is much more versatile IMO.

As for some of the other speakers mentioned here, I don't know how they measure but I've always found the ML electrostatic speakers to be way to bright for my tastes. The DefTech BPs (can't remember which) I once heard sounded bloated to me. The Goldenears did nothing for me soundwise and I found them to be cheap looking with that shiny plastic base and sock. I'd take the Polk LSiM over the Goldenears just on fit & finish alone. Incidentally, I had LSiM 703s and felt that the bass was much more pronounced than John Atkinson's measurements showed. Dennis Murphy looked into it on a thread a while back and he confirmed my observations. So sometimes our ears are right.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Errr, it's "less than" eargiant. You're forgetting the <.

Incidentally, I had LSiM 703s and felt that the bass was much more pronounced than John Atkinson's measurements showed. Dennis Murphy looked into it on a thread a while back and he confirmed my observations. So sometimes our ears are right.

Hmmmm Don't remember that. Just for the record, I've never heard the Polks, so there must have been some technical issue involved.

 

[<eargiant]

Hmmmm Don't remember that. Just for the record, I've never heard the Polks, so there must have been some technical issue involved.

Hi Dennis- I linked the thread below (see post #16).

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/plugging-ported-speakers-what-does-the-amp-see.104189/

I should put this quote in my signature "Your ears are obviously more accurate than John's Stereophile measurement." - Just kidding (but I was honored by the comment coming from you).

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Hi Dennis- I linked the thread below (see post #16).

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/plugging-ported-speakers-what-does-the-amp-see.104189/

I should put this quote in my signature "Your ears are obviously more accurate than John's Stereophile measurement." - Just kidding (but I was honored by the comment coming from you).

Hmmmmm

Hi Dennis- I linked the thread below (see post #16).

https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/plugging-ported-speakers-what-does-the-amp-see.104189/

I should put this quote in my signature "Your ears are obviously more accurate than John's Stereophile measurement." - Just kidding (but I was honored by the comment coming from you).

What I did was to look at the NRC measurements for the Polk, which showed a bump in the bass around 100 Hz, while the Stereophile plots was absolutely flat. I concluded that the Stereophile plot must be wrong, since their splicing method always show a big bulge in the bass for speakers that really are flat. I've since learned from personal experience that the NRC lab doesn't do very well with rear ported speakers. Were the polks rear ported?

 

[<eargiant]

Hmmmmm


What I did was to look at the NRC measurements for the Polk, which showed a bump in the bass around 100 Hz, while the Stereophile plots was absolutely flat. I concluded that the Stereophile plot must be wrong, since their splicing method always show a big bulge in the bass for speakers that really are flat. I've since learned from personal experience that the NRC lab doesn't do very well with rear ported speakers. Were the polks rear ported?

Yup, the LSiM 703 are rear ported. They have some type of air deflector with a cone going into the port hole as can be seen here.



The LSiM 703 is a 3-way as can be seen here on the left (your first AA Monitors on the right ).



I don't know what's going on with those measurements but all I know is the the low end on the LSiM 703 and 805D2 sound completely opposite of what the graphs below would lead one to believe. The LSiMs definitely have an accentuated low end especially when compared to the 805D2.



Bowers & Wilkins


Polk

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Well, I don't think I can help you out on this one. The NRC measurements do show a bump at 100 Hz for the Polk, and I originally thought that was good evidence that the Stereophile measurement was bonkers. But I sent a BMR to the NRC for testing, and it showed a similar bump at 100 Hz, even though none of my measurements or the modeling showed it, and I couldn't hear it. I discussed this with the NRC engineer, and he said the NRC anechoic chamber had been built when most speakers were sealed or front ported. With no room reinforcement, the output of a rear port will often arrive a little later than the primary output, and the difference in phase can cause cancellations and peaks that don't occur in a real room. That's probably what was happening with the BMR measurements, and could also be true for the Polk. So I can't say with any confidence that the NRC measurements for the Polk contradict Stereophile's.

 

[<eargiant]

Well, I don't think I can help you out on this one. The NRC measurements do show a bump at 100 Hz for the Polk, and I originally thought that was good evidence that the Stereophile measurement was bonkers. But I sent a BMR to the NRC for testing, and it showed a similar bump at 100 Hz, even though none of my measurements or the modeling showed it, and I couldn't hear it. I discussed this with the NRC engineer, and he said the NRC anechoic chamber had been built when most speakers were sealed or front ported. With no room reinforcement, the output of a rear port will often arrive a little later than the primary output, and the difference in phase can cause cancellations and peaks that don't occur in a real room. That's probably what was happening with the BMR measurements, and could also be true for the Polk. So I can't say with any confidence that the NRC measurements for the Polk contradict Stereophile's.

Interesting, I always kinda felt that measurements were only valid when comparing those of the same tester/environment/protocol (and even speaker configuration) and your comments seems to support this.

Imagine two individuals that had never heard the BMR, one only reads the NRC graph and the other only reads your graph. They'd both argue endlessly as to how the speakers sound in real life (neither having ever heard them). This is why I like to look at graphs but always trust my ears first and foremost.

Quick question, if the hump in JAs measurements is due to the splicing of the near field measurement and flat speaker will always measure with a hump in the lower end, how can he get a "flat" line with the LSiM 703? Something doesn't jibe. Especially after knowing that they are heavy on the low end.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Interesting, I always kinda felt that measurements were only valid when comparing those of the same tester/environment/protocol (and even speaker configuration) and your comments seems to support this.

Imagine two individuals that had never heard the BMR, one only reads the NRC graph and the other only reads your graph. They'd both argue endlessly as to how the speakers sound in real life (neither having ever heard them). This is why I like to look at graphs but always trust my ears first and foremost.

Quick question, if the hump in JAs measurements is due to the splicing of the near field measurement and flat speaker will always measure with a hump in the lower end, how can he get a "flat" line with the LSiM 703? Something doesn't jibe. Especially after knowing that they are heavy on the low end.

That seeming contradiction is what has been fueling this discussion. I originally thought the NRC measurements indicated that there was some kind of error in the Stereophile measurements, because they should have shown an even larger bump in the bass due to the nearfield splicing. But I no longer trust the NRC measurements in the 100 Hz region, so I can't shed any light on why the stereophile plot is so flat in that area. And I haven't heard any of the speakers in question, so I can't be of any help in resolving the mystery.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is why I like to look at graphs but always trust my ears first and foremost.

It’s the same way with everything Audio-Video.

Whether it’s speakers or amps or TVs, measurements can make great discussions, but we trust our eyes and ears.

I believe that is the sentiment of most people here.

But we still want to debate the measurements.

 

[<eargiant]

That seeming contradiction is what has been fueling this discussion. I originally thought the NRC measurements indicated that there was some kind of error in the Stereophile measurements, because they should have shown an even larger bump in the bass due to the nearfield splicing. But I no longer trust the NRC measurements in the 100 Hz region, so I can't shed any light on why the stereophile plot is so flat in that area. And I haven't heard any of the speakers in question, so I can't be of any help in resolving the mystery.

Thanks, yeah I'm sure if you heard them you'd agree. I'm with you on the not trusting some measurements part (or at least being skeptical), I've been there for a long time. No matter how reputable the source, too many variables to consider as we have now clearly seen with the rear port/ NRC protocol issue.

Too bad I still don't have my LSiM 703. I would have been willing to drive down with them and the 805D2 so you could measure both using your protocol. You'd gain more research/data points and we would've all gained a really interesting thread . It would have been interesting to see how they compared to each other (as well as to JAs measurements of the 805D and NRCs measurements of the LSiM).

Does anyone here know if NRC has ever measured the 805D2?

Has anyone here ever seen a lower end speaker measurement done by John Atkinson that appears to be as flat as the LSiM 703?

Even JAs measurement of the KEF LS50 seems to be handily outdone by the LSiM 703 measurements in all regions below ~8 kHz. Whaaa??

KEF LS50


Polk LSiM 703