Discussion threads can be closed at any time at our discretion. Review Sections Review. Sound One excellent thing about these loudspeakers is their ability to retain their composure as the volume control is advanced. Previous page. Apple delays plan to scan iPhones for child abuse images. Amazon lockers are popping up in odd places. What's new New posts Latest activity. Members Current visitors. Log in Register.
Search titles only. Search Advanced search…. New posts. Search forums. Log in. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums not all true. Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously.
I would be glad if any of you have experience with one of these or both, to help me understand the differences between these 2, objectively and subjectively. Last edited: May 2, Thread Starter 2. As ever, your mileage may vary and remember, this is me trying to optimise using positioning alone, before EQ of any sort is added into the mix. The Rb subwoofer worked best, just inside of the right speaker. Cables were used. Listening If I were to encapsulate the R Series in a sentance, I'd have to throw adjectives such as unflappable grace, transparency with polish and boogy into the mix.
One thing I will say straight off the bat is that I've seen a few people both in print and on-line say the R Series are a bit bright. As mentioned above, not only do they measure flat as the proverbial trouser cuff, they sound deliciously clear and incisive, without the least bit of spitty sibilance, crashy cymbals or 'demo friendly' over emphasis what-so-ever. This is not only the best tweeter I've yet heard in the Uni-Q array, it's a very nice tweeter full stop.
That's not to say it will flatter harsh sounding separates, or poor source material, but it isn't provoked into making them sound worse. With a really good recordings, it's just a beautifully airy view through an open window, without glare or fuss. Of course, this being a three way loudspeaker and one with a mid range driver that covers a good deal more than a small spot twixt the treble and bass, the fine treble is for nought if the mid driver isn't up to the same standards.
Happily the mid-range, like the blend between it and the treble is more than up to scratch. It's simply superb. There is a coherence to vocal expression that is only really achieved with a single driver covering the larger part of it's range. The removal of time domain confusion, due to phase shifts inevitable in a crossover region, frees an extra level of emotion from the performance, elevating it from clear, to captivating.
In terms of the R Series package tested here, I'm struggling to think of anything that can really be called a weakness. The R Series are rather bass proficient, which some may find makes them a little bass heavy, if their room doesn't allow the speakers full reign in terms of positioning.
The dual mode bungs are a big help, but even so, you won't get away with cramming the Rs in a corner. Likewise, the Rs thrive on Watts and an amplifier capable of applying some grip.
Don't drop the Rs on the end of a single ended triode amplifier or a 50 watter integrated and expect them to be held in check. Take the time and care to position, match them with appropriate amplification and the you'll be rewarded with class leading bass quality. Laserjock Senior Member Forum Donor. Nov 4, I've been deciding between the Revel F and the Kef R7 for my living room secondary system, I narrowed it down to those 2 based purely on measurements and looks and my wife picked the Kef R7s in Walnut as she much preferred the looks in our living room.
I have never heard either but am familiar with the Revel sound. They should arrive tomorrow and will be used with a Rythmik E15HP when it gets here. Dispersion is wide enough, that brightness is easily controlled by adjusting toe. According to my own subjective experience, I believe KEF's dispersion is wider than Dyn's, but I would have to see measurements to confirm that. The F is not light in the bass--especially factoring in room gain and boundary effects.
I have to use room EQ to pull down three room modes to even it out. If you want good sub-bass performance, you almost always needs subs. Only the largest tower speakers perform well under 50 Hz. Also, there is very little content below 40 Hz in most music. Twenty to 40 Hz content is mostly reserved for movies. Here is an unvarnished measurement of my Fs in my [terrible] room without subs.
As you can see, lack of bass is not a problem I have. View attachment If you are looking at the Soundstage measurements, they note that the NRC's chamber is not terribly accurate under Hz. For comparison to the above:. There is one more point I want to draw attention to. When I look at the measurements, I see that 'in general' bookshelf speakers suffer more from cabinet resonance than tower speakers. In the frequency charts, it seemed to me that R7 is not much different from R3. That's why I wanted to consider the R7.
Joined Sep 21, Messages Likes R3 has very narrow dispersion. Only RPM has less reflective energy. Assuming R7 is similar to R3. Dynaudio looks like it should have wider dispersion with flush tweeter. It's a good choice for comparison, rather than purchasing another wide dispersion speaker.
At least you'll know what kind of dispersion pattern you prefer in your environment. I learned a lot about my preferences the last month having JBL and Focal Aria narrow vs wide together in my house. You must log in or register to reply here. Similar threads D.
Píše j atkinson, m302 anniversaire, of the speaker, dudley listening 162, bargains stereophilecom, 8 ohm, monoprice 3channel amplifiers, na recenziju psba, sit3 power amplifier, sasha daw 10142016, audio refinement pre5, wrapup stereophilecom