Glad to see these are still on sale!
Time is tight, but I took about 45 minutes to get a read on the R162 vs 530. Both are very good for the price (when on sale for $200 and $300 respectively), but they each have their own sound signature.
I am toying with the notion that the greater ratio of direct to reflected sound of the 530 simply provides the effect of a lower noise floor by reducing the amount of extraneous reflected sound waves. As a general rule, one of the dominant differences I hear is that the 530's are a bit clearer and I was thinking "reduced noise floor" before I realized there may be an actual reason for that!
The 530's also have more slam - which I mentioned on the 580 review - the attacks are a bit sharper. Listening to the upright bass being played, the guy on the 530 is plucking the notes a bit more aggressively than on the R162.
OTOH, the character of the sound of a cymbal is more accurate on the R162, as is the timbre of the trombone. So there are trade-offs.
All in all, if using it for HT and if Rock is your thing, the 530 is a no brainer!
If HT and speakeasy jazz trio/quartet (stuff like Melody Gardot's first two albums), I would still go for the 530's!
If only rock music - 530's!
If only speakeasy jazz - R162's.
The above is partly because the slam of the 530's plays well on HT or rock, but also the "lower noise floor effect" becomes more significant when there are more voices crowding into the sound field (resulting in more reflections).
However, I would also say that these two speakers fit into the category of both being good yet having enough difference to be refreshing to switch between.
IOW, if you have two systems, I would prefer to have one (my HT) with the 530's and the other (BR) with the R162!
I might consider the R162 a bit more sophisticated (but staid) while the 530 leans towards "rowdy" without losing very much competence!