Last week, the KEF R3 speakers arrived, and the exciting process of comparing speakers with my existing ELAC DBR62s began. Here’s a detailed breakdown of my setup and listening impressions as I Compare Speakers in various configurations.
Level matching was crucial for a fair speaker comparison. I initially used full-band random pink noise, A-weighted, measured with a UMIK-2 microphone. However, I found this method slightly imprecise, especially considering the tonal differences, particularly in the high frequencies, between the two speaker sets. I made minor adjustments by ear to ensure perceived equal loudness. It’s worth noting that Floyd Toole suggested B-weighted measurements for speaker comparisons at Harman, but unfortunately, REW (Room EQ Wizard) doesn’t seem to support B-weighting.
My compare speakers process is structured in stages. Here are my initial impressions:
Mono Speaker Comparison: Unprocessed Signal
Comparing speakers in mono is incredibly revealing, allowing for a concentrated focus on the core sonic differences. In this mono configuration, the distinctions between the KEF R3 and ELAC DBR62 were most apparent.
-
Tonality: The KEF R3 exhibits a more pronounced high-frequency presence. This elevation in the highs isn’t harsh or fatiguing; instead, it’s clean and pleasant, far removed from the typical brightness often associated with budget speakers like the R152. The sub-bass performance of the R3 is significantly superior. It delivers a palpable sense of deep bass extension – you can almost “feel” the subwoofer frequencies, leaving you wanting for a dedicated sub even less in near-field listening. The ELAC DBR62, in contrast, presents a slightly more prominent mid-bass, contributing to a warmer overall sound signature. While midrange nuances are more subtle for me to discern, vocals on the R3 sounded subjectively more refined and enjoyable.
-
Dispersion and Soundstage: The ELAC DBR62 projects sound as if emanating from a smaller point source, whereas the R3 creates a more expansive and taller sonic image. The physical size difference between the speakers likely contributes to this perceived difference in soundstage presence.
-
Overall Preference (Mono): In this mono speaker comparison, my clear preference leans towards the KEF R3. While the ELAC DBR62 remains a very competent speaker, the R3’s superior tonality and more expansive soundstage make it stand out.
Stereo Speaker Comparison: Unprocessed Signal
Moving to a stereo configuration for this speaker comparison retains the tonal characteristics observed in mono but allows for a deeper exploration of soundstage and imaging capabilities. I found the DBR62 to produce a slightly wider soundstage, but it felt vertically compressed or flatter compared to the R3. The DBR62 does offer soundstage depth, but it has a somewhat “horseshoe” shape – the left and right edges of the soundstage feel closer to the listener, while the center image seems further recessed. The KEF R3, in contrast, projects a taller soundstage that primarily extends between the speakers. Depth perception with the R3 is excellent, and unlike the DBR62, it maintains a more even and realistic soundstage shape, without pushing the center image too far back.
These soundstage differences translate to the R3 providing a more convincing sense of the recording venue’s acoustics and spatial cues. You can more readily “feel” the room’s dimensions and ambience. Listening to Britten’s “Festival Te Deum” by the Westminster Choir, both speakers create a “holographic” soundstage, but the sense of space feels grander and more authentic with the R3, despite the soundstage being slightly narrower than the DBR62. The height of the soundstage projected by the R3 is particularly impressive and enjoyable.
Speaker Comparison with Dirac Calibration
To further refine this speaker comparison, I implemented Dirac Live room correction software. Here are the Dirac curves applied to each speaker:
DBR62 Dirac Calibration:
R3 Dirac Calibration:
The target curve was consistent for both speakers, reflecting my personal preferences: a +2dB bass shelf, -1dB dip at 1kHz, and -3dB roll-off at 20kHz. I customized the bass boost limits to prevent overdriving either speaker’s drivers. Initially, I experimented with a flat bass target, but subjectively, the bass response didn’t sound quite right on either speaker in my room.
With Dirac applied and tuned as shown in the graphs, both speakers underwent a remarkable transformation. They both gained a palpable “body-feel” bass presence, the noticeable 100-500Hz peak was effectively eliminated, and the treble frequencies were tamed to a near-perfect balance.
Post-calibration, the speakers sounded more similar than different. However, subtle distinctions remained:
-
Tonality (Dirac Calibrated): Dirac effectively minimized most tonal differences. However, the vocals and high frequencies on the R3 still retained a subjective edge in pleasantness. The DBR62 sounded familiar and comfortable, as I’ve used them extensively, but the R3 offered a heightened sense of “clarity” and “smoothness” in direct speaker comparison.
-
Soundstage (Dirac Calibrated): The soundstage characteristics largely mirrored the unprocessed signal comparison. The DBR62 maintained its wider, vertically flatter, and horseshoe-shaped soundstage, while the R3 continued to deliver a narrower, taller soundstage with more realistic depth perception.
-
Sub-bass (Dirac Calibrated): The KEF R3’s sub-bass advantage remained significant even after Dirac calibration. For near-field listening, with Dirac and bass boost, I’d confidently suggest that the R3 could negate the need for a separate subwoofer. While boosting bass naturally reduces dynamic range, ample headroom remains for typical near-field listening levels.
Overall Preference (Dirac Calibrated): With Dirac Live engaged, I could happily live with either speaker. However, my preference for the KEF R3 persists due to its subtle yet noticeable advantages in clarity, smoothness, and soundstage realism in this detailed speaker comparison.
Next Steps in Speaker Comparison
At this point, I’m certain that the KEF R3s will remain a permanent fixture in my setup. However, I intend to further explore the potential of both speaker pairs on my desk. One aspect I’m not entirely satisfied with is comparing angled soundstages in the current A/B configuration. To address this, I’ve ordered Lazy Susans to enable rotating both speakers and comparing them in identical positions relative to the listening position and monitor. I haven’t seen this approach used in other speaker comparison tests and believe it could yield interesting insights.
Furthermore, I plan to integrate my two R12 subwoofers separately with each speaker pair and conduct subwoofer-augmented comparisons. This will be implemented once the Lazy Susan setup is in place.
Beyond these direct comparisons, I’m also considering an unconventional experiment: using the R3s as primary speakers and adding the DBR62s as outrigger speakers. By using separate amplifiers fed from the two outputs of my SHD processor and applying Dirac calibration to the combined system, I aim to investigate if this configuration can create both a wide and tall soundstage simultaneously. I acknowledge potential interference and tonal shifts, but I’m eager to explore this concept empirically.
Your tips and suggestions are always welcome! If there are specific aspects of this speaker comparison you’d like me to delve into further, please ask. I’ll maintain this comparison setup for at least the next couple of weeks.
