Model: KEF - R3 Series Passive 3-Way Bookshelf Speakers (Pair) - Black Gloss
Deal History
Deal History includes data from multiple reputable stores, such as Best Buy, Target, and Walmart. The lowest price among stores for a given day is selected as the "Sale Price".
Sale Price does not include sale prices at Amazon unless a deal was posted by a community member.
What % of the sound of the F328 would you say the R11 delivering? Have heard good things about it, but it's big. I've heard 800-series B&W at Best Buy playing Inception soundtrack "Time". It cast a pretty big and dynamic sound, plenty of detail. But I hear they are on the bright side and can be fatiguing.
LS50/W are great for near field, so ideal as PC speakers, I just couldn't handle the risk of the electronics going bad, as I've read plenty of reports, so went with passives.
That's a hard one, can only really compare similar speakers like the R11 to REF5. The REF5 not being $20,000 IMO.
The B&W802's are great, but pricey at $20-30,000. I'm surprised Best Buy carries Magnolia type stuff of that magnitude.
Unless you can afford Genelec or want powered Kali coaxials, get these. Most other speaker makers are willfully dumb: reflections of sound are often worse than the direct sound. Vertical reflections are often the most dissimilar to direct sound. KEF speakers have excellent horizontal dispersion/reflections AND vertical reflections.
Also, of your center speaker isn't coaxial it is purposefully busted trash for anyone who isn't directly in front of it.
You could give Linty Linton, Klipshitteous, ATC, PMC, and the other woefully incompetent speaker makers a million dollar budget and they'd likely be unable to make something comparable.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION I'm aware of is wide dispersion Revel speakers where you may prefer that especially for only two channels.
The 'dynamics' chasers are lying to you, they just want the highest max volume which doesn't mean a speaker is more dynamic, as speakers operating normally don't act as a dynamic range compressor.
I'm sad to report that I'm returning these speakers to BB. The sound balance of the R3 is not to my taste. They're too forward sounding and fatiguing to listen to for more than a half hour. Recordings that aren't the greatest (but nonetheless are favorites) are downright unpleasant on them.
I'm coming from KEF LS50's. Yes the R3's are more detailed / revealing, and have a larger soundstage, and they have more full bass than the LS50's. But they also achieve this with bright sound balance (much brighter than the LS50's, which I consider to be very well balanced and natural).
After an hour on my speaker stands, I put the R3's back in the box and put the LS50's back. Yes, the 50's are a little less detailed, but that's the trade-off that speakers have to balance. More revealing can be a bad thing when it results in harshness. I'm actually surprised by this sound character from KEF. I would have expected this kind of forward sound from JBL or Klipsch.
If you're wondering what electronics and source I paired them with: I have a very simple setup with a Marantz integrated amp with integrated HiRes DAC. The source is my Mac computer playing FLAC files. I do listen closer than most people (within 6 feet) and I admit that the R3 might not be good for this kind of near-field listening. But the LS50's are great in this configuration. BTW, I have original 50's not Meta, paired with an SVS sub.
Thanks, trialing some martin logan 60's while I'm at it and will either grab these or the R5's
Based on my experience with the R3 being way too forward sounding -- which I imagine is the sound character of the entire R series -- The ML 60's are a more natural sounding speaker.
I have Martin Logan Motion 50 center and 40 towers in my surround sound system and love them in that role. They only secured this position in my home after I tried many other speakers. They are ever so slightly on the bright side, but that's good for this usage, as dialogue and SFX are more revealing.
And I have heard the Motion 35's previously in a 2 channel system and liked them a lot. But similarly ever so slightly bright (in other words it's the Motion series sound character). But again this made them revealing, while only a TINY bit of harshness on a small number of recordings.
I'm sad to report that I'm returning these speakers to BB. The sound balance of the R3 is not to my taste. They're too forward sounding and fatiguing to listen to for more than a half hour. Recordings that aren't the greatest (but nonetheless are favorites) are downright unpleasant on them.
I'm coming from KEF LS50's. Yes the R3's are more detailed / revealing, and have a larger soundstage, and they have more full bass than the LS50's. But they also achieve this with bright sound balance (much brighter than the LS50's, which I consider to be very well balanced and natural).
After an hour on my speaker stands, I put the R3's back in the box and put the LS50's back. Yes, the 50's are a little less detailed, but that's the trade-off that speakers have to balance. More revealing can be a bad thing when it results in harshness. I'm actually surprised by this sound character from KEF. I would have expected this kind of forward sound from JBL or Klipsch.
If you're wondering what electronics and source I paired them with: I have a very simple setup with a Marantz integrated amp with integrated HiRes DAC. The source is my Mac computer playing FLAC files. I do listen closer than most people (within 6 feet) and I admit that the R3 might not be good for this kind of near-field listening. But the LS50's are great in this configuration. BTW, I have original 50's not Meta, paired with an SVS sub.
I have never listened to the R3s properly, but my neighbor did get a pair last week. I may go listen to it in detail once has them all setup. I did listen to the R3s at the Magnolia store when I was shopping around for my LS50 replacements and they did sound quite good. Ofcourse, it may sound completely different in my room, but I had liked them.
I did have the LS50s for a year and thought they were too bright for my taste. I loved the detail but I just couldn't handle the brightness. I have heard that the metas measure a bit better and the highs are more rolled off. I may try the LS50s in the future, but it'll definitely be the metas.
Based on my experience with the R3 being way too forward sounding -- which I imagine is the sound character of the entire R series -- The ML 60's are a more natural sounding speaker.
I have Martin Logan Motion 50 center and 40 towers in my surround sound system and love them in that role. They only secured this position in my home after I tried many other speakers. They are ever so slightly on the bright side, but that's good for this usage, as dialogue and SFX are more revealing.
And I have heard the Motion 35's previously in a 2 channel system and liked them a lot. But similarly ever so slightly bright (in other words it's the Motion series sound character). But again this made them revealing, while only a TINY bit of harshness on a small number of recordings.
I can't imagine how bad the r3 would sound to my music which revolves around more obscure and harsh underground black metal from Norway which is badly produced(on purpose). I found the wharfadale EVO4.2 Bookshelf Speakers to do an amazing job. Now I'm curious to hear the martin Logans
I just picked up a pair of R11s from my local Best Buy for $1590 for the pair. They were in great condition minus a small dent on the edge of the cabinet. No damage to the cones or anywhere else. I don't even need speakers… smh
I just picked up a pair of R11s from my local Best Buy for $1590 for the pair. They were in great condition minus a small dent on the edge of the cabinet. No damage to the cones or anywhere else. I don't even need speakers… smh
How so cheap when they are listed for 1300 open box each? do you mean R7s?
I just picked up a pair of R11s from my local Best Buy for $1590 for the pair. They were in great condition minus a small dent on the edge of the cabinet. No damage to the cones or anywhere else. I don't even need speakers… smh
Would mind posting your receipt please so we can try to price match?
I just picked up a pair of R11s from my local Best Buy for $1590 for the pair. They were in great condition minus a small dent on the edge of the cabinet. No damage to the cones or anywhere else. I don't even need speakers… smh
136 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
I have LS50's (original) and they're great. I mostly listen at low levels, but I do turn it up a bit now and then and that's when the 50's disappoint.
I'm expecting the R3's to fix that.
I had a pair of KEF Reference One's for many years and should never have sold them.
Based on what? They have speakers are many price points, including a model that's regularly on sale for under $500
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Thanks, trialing some martin logan 60's while I'm at it and will either grab these or the R5's
LS50/W are great for near field, so ideal as PC speakers, I just couldn't handle the risk of the electronics going bad, as I've read plenty of reports, so went with passives.
The B&W802's are great, but pricey at $20-30,000. I'm surprised Best Buy carries Magnolia type stuff of that magnitude.
Also, of your center speaker isn't coaxial it is purposefully busted trash for anyone who isn't directly in front of it.
You could give Linty Linton, Klipshitteous, ATC, PMC, and the other woefully incompetent speaker makers a million dollar budget and they'd likely be unable to make something comparable.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION I'm aware of is wide dispersion Revel speakers where you may prefer that especially for only two channels.
The 'dynamics' chasers are lying to you, they just want the highest max volume which doesn't mean a speaker is more dynamic, as speakers operating normally don't act as a dynamic range compressor.
I'm coming from KEF LS50's. Yes the R3's are more detailed / revealing, and have a larger soundstage, and they have more full bass than the LS50's. But they also achieve this with bright sound balance (much brighter than the LS50's, which I consider to be very well balanced and natural).
After an hour on my speaker stands, I put the R3's back in the box and put the LS50's back. Yes, the 50's are a little less detailed, but that's the trade-off that speakers have to balance. More revealing can be a bad thing when it results in harshness. I'm actually surprised by this sound character from KEF. I would have expected this kind of forward sound from JBL or Klipsch.
If you're wondering what electronics and source I paired them with: I have a very simple setup with a Marantz integrated amp with integrated HiRes DAC. The source is my Mac computer playing FLAC files. I do listen closer than most people (within 6 feet) and I admit that the R3 might not be good for this kind of near-field listening. But the LS50's are great in this configuration. BTW, I have original 50's not Meta, paired with an SVS sub.
https://us.kef.com/products/r7
I have Martin Logan Motion 50 center and 40 towers in my surround sound system and love them in that role. They only secured this position in my home after I tried many other speakers. They are ever so slightly on the bright side, but that's good for this usage, as dialogue and SFX are more revealing.
And I have heard the Motion 35's previously in a 2 channel system and liked them a lot. But similarly ever so slightly bright (in other words it's the Motion series sound character). But again this made them revealing, while only a TINY bit of harshness on a small number of recordings.
I'm coming from KEF LS50's. Yes the R3's are more detailed / revealing, and have a larger soundstage, and they have more full bass than the LS50's. But they also achieve this with bright sound balance (much brighter than the LS50's, which I consider to be very well balanced and natural).
After an hour on my speaker stands, I put the R3's back in the box and put the LS50's back. Yes, the 50's are a little less detailed, but that's the trade-off that speakers have to balance. More revealing can be a bad thing when it results in harshness. I'm actually surprised by this sound character from KEF. I would have expected this kind of forward sound from JBL or Klipsch.
If you're wondering what electronics and source I paired them with: I have a very simple setup with a Marantz integrated amp with integrated HiRes DAC. The source is my Mac computer playing FLAC files. I do listen closer than most people (within 6 feet) and I admit that the R3 might not be good for this kind of near-field listening. But the LS50's are great in this configuration. BTW, I have original 50's not Meta, paired with an SVS sub.
I did have the LS50s for a year and thought they were too bright for my taste. I loved the detail but I just couldn't handle the brightness. I have heard that the metas measure a bit better and the highs are more rolled off. I may try the LS50s in the future, but it'll definitely be the metas.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I have Martin Logan Motion 50 center and 40 towers in my surround sound system and love them in that role. They only secured this position in my home after I tried many other speakers. They are ever so slightly on the bright side, but that's good for this usage, as dialogue and SFX are more revealing.
And I have heard the Motion 35's previously in a 2 channel system and liked them a lot. But similarly ever so slightly bright (in other words it's the Motion series sound character). But again this made them revealing, while only a TINY bit of harshness on a small number of recordings.
How so cheap when they are listed for 1300 open box each? do you mean R7s?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.