Originally Posted by aarons915
Come on, that's some random person measuring them with REW, I have no idea if they're outdoor measurements or time-gated, but they are nowhere near a proper measurement in an anechoic chamber. Look at the NRC measurements of the Revel F206 and the KEF R11, both are very good overall but you can see even off-axis, the KEF is a constant slope even out to 75 degrees, where the F206 doesn't quite match in the tweeter range. Matching directivity at all off-axis angles is really what separates the men from the boys.
All the graphs show a similar general, overall trend in response. The mids are laidback, the upper mids are forward, and the highs roll off. I'm just providing some more data, don't shoot the messenger. You don't need an anechoic chamber to properly measure speakers for the sake of online discussion. Besides, the independent horizontal off-axis measurements of the R3 above match the NRC R11's off-axis response almost perfectly. So I think the comparison is valid for casual conversation.
The Kef whitepaper R11 response (since the off-axis stuff are "power averages" and overly smoothed as a result) looks way better than the NRC R11 response (which are actual individual traces), which is why independent testing is important to us consumers.
Coaxes have their advantages, to be sure, and I'm a fan as well. But if off-axis uniformity in all directions was so important, everyone on the planet would own a cheap Kef and just apply some EQ to taste. I've owned three separate Kefs (Q100, Q150, LS50) and have returned each one, despite their off-axis "superiority." If the listening window isn't suited to one's tastes, nothing else matters.
I'm also guessing that many people would prefer the Revel F206 over the Kef R11 in a blind test, despite any off-axis "imperfections." I don't think the R11's would win in a landslide over a Revel in the same price range. I bet it would come down to personal preference, for both men and boys, alike.