• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

KEF Reference 1 META Bookshelf Speaker Review by Erin's Audio Corner

Everett T

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
648
Likes
486
I've been told here the material of the tweeter is irrelevant
But from what I've heard beryllium tweeters always sounded special to me
I wouldn't say irrelevant but not as important in designing a competent speaker.

Reading through John Krutke's (Zaph Audio) driver testing, he has interesting thoughts on the subject of material and is worth a read. He is no longer updating the site IIRC but still plenty of info.
 

Arnas

Active Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
153
Likes
198
I've been told here the material of the tweeter is irrelevant
But from what I've heard beryllium tweeters always sounded special to me
Its very costly to make them so if there was no difference? Why would manufacturers increase price of their products with such exotic material?
It is very very stiff and light metal so im sure distortion and speed difference should be significant.
 

Pearljam5000

Master Contributor
Joined
Oct 12, 2020
Messages
5,125
Likes
5,355
Its very costly to make them so if there was no difference? Why would manufacturers increase price of their products with such exotic material?
It is very very stiff and light metal so im sure distortion and speed difference should be significant.
That's what i ask myself
But I'm no expert and only know what i heard with my own ears
 

LightninBoy

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
712
Likes
1,458
Location
St. Paul, MN
I don't agree.
Unless you are only talking aesthetics only.
I mean I prefered the Revel M16 to the R3 by a notable margin and it is less than half the price and then the M126be sealed the deal for me. The R3 wasn't even close and that is not hype. In terms of good sounding gear they do have a pretty different sound from one another though.

Had them all at the same time for quite awhile.
M126be=Much better sounding speaker for my taste, vastly.

I did like the look of the R3 more, though I wish all of these came in matte finishes. Glossy to some of use looks like office microwaves.

Note, I am a Revel owner. I wasn't talking about sound quality. When I said product design I meant a mix of aesthetics and products that create or capture new markets. KEF is positioning itself as a quasi lifestyle brand with real HiFi credentials and killing it. In contrast, Revel doesn't have anything in the desktop, wireless, or active space. And that's where the innovations are happening.
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
Note, I am a Revel owner. I wasn't talking about sound quality. When I said product design I meant a mix of aesthetics and products that create or capture new markets. KEF is positioning itself as a quasi lifestyle brand with real HiFi credentials and killing it. In contrast, Revel doesn't have anything in the desktop, wireless, or active space. And that's where the innovations are happening.
Agree with that.
I want Revel/Harman to at least make home oriented actives.*

Even if they do, KEF does understand design and what appeals to many of the stylish folks with cash to drop. They have a well thought out line of products that do sound very good if not (as if yet)quite my personal thing.

And for this model, the photos don't even do justice as the Reference 1's look simply amazing in person IMHO.

*The JBL 4305p does look like a start, retro design is appealing to me and JBL's version is a good one though likely polarizing. I actually really like the JBL classic and 4000 series aesthetics.
 

Streamc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
277
Likes
69
Interesting subjective take.
Especially as he compares to the R3 which I owned.
Never once found the R3's bright in my space, even on bright tracks they resolved with less brightness then other systems.
In my experience they were a were a bit to buttoned, reserved and mellow, never quite able to pull a 007.
Could be room issues-mfctr deviations or taste who knows but I always find subjective takes interesting.
My actual in room "curve" did not quite match the PIR and did not level off, it was very smooth, of course that PIR/my actual in room MMM, doesn't really mean much of anything.

Anyway despite not loving the R3's I deff want to hear these bad boys and see if they do in fact have some dynamic prowess.

Don't think the META will help much with dynamics.
The R3's are not dynamic speakers. Very average in that regard. Clean, buttoned sound but little excitement.
It was one of the major reasons I did not keep them, that and the smallish sweet spot and smallish soundstage.
They could play very loudly with low distortion when High Passed. That part was covered well. I do go loud and the R3's stayed very clean sounding and unstressed. If not high passed the speakers got a little dirty down low, I deff recommend a 70-80hrz HP if you like content with bass and you want some natural sounding SPL.

Anyway I could see someone finding the R3's 5/5stars and someone else like me being very non-plussed. (For me they hit about 3/5 stars.)
What is dynamic?
 

bigjacko

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
721
Likes
359
What happened to physics? How come there is no compression at all? I guess that 7 inch waveguide makes decent acoustic gain so the tweeter can play loud with small power and displacement, resulting in very low distortion and no compression. The construction of the coaxial and meta material might also help in this area.

That waveguide and baffle dimension combination probably had some thought put in. The horizontal directivity is very good for a sharp edged baffle. Above 2kHz, the diffraction is controlled by waveguide, then below 2kHz there is no diffraction probably because of narrow baffle. The vertical diffraction below 2kHz is a bit worse probably due to longer distance to top and a woofer below. Not sure why there is also 4kHz vertical directivity problem when the waveguide is 7 inch. (Maybe that is the raw effect of waveguide, the horizontal smoothness is due to the sharp edge making difraction and somehow made it smooth?) If someone can calculated some of the frequencies related to the dimensions or make a BEM model, it will help a lot here.
 

Everett T

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
648
Likes
486
What happened to physics? How come there is no compression at all? I guess that 7 inch waveguide makes decent acoustic gain so the tweeter can play loud with small power and displacement, resulting in very low distortion and no compression. The construction of the coaxial and meta material might also help in this area.

That waveguide and baffle dimension combination probably had some thought put in. The horizontal directivity is very good for a sharp edged baffle. Above 2kHz, the diffraction is controlled by waveguide, then below 2kHz there is no diffraction probably because of narrow baffle. The vertical diffraction below 2kHz is a bit worse probably due to longer distance to top and a woofer below. Not sure why there is also 4kHz vertical directivity problem when the waveguide is 7 inch. (Maybe that is the raw effect of waveguide, the horizontal smoothness is due to the sharp edge making difraction and somehow made it smooth?) If someone can calculated some of the frequencies related to the dimensions or make a BEM model, it will help a lot here.
Where are you getting 7" waveguide from?
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,915
Likes
3,394
Location
Minneapolis
What is dynamic?
… a subject of great dispute … ;)
I don't think it is in great dispute that some speakers are more dynamic than others and certainly having enough amplifier power can be an intrinsic issue in this.

Some folks are more attracted to a dynamic sound than others. Some prefer it so much that it is even priority 1, while others 180 degrees away, actually don't like dynamic sound - preferring a more subdued and mellow approach. It is not priority 1 for me but it is a high one. When a good sounding speaker has good dynamic qualities, that is usually where my toes start tapping and I can't help but love a speakers sound.

Unfortunately, none of the tests were get presented with can measure it well, though you can sometimes make a pretty good guess.

General dynamics and "dynamic attack", are a way of conveying in words the effect of the speakers being able to shock you with clean, clear, effortless SPL increases in louder passages/peaks in the source material - To energize the room. Micro dynamics is dealing with such things as plucking a string or the tapping of sticks - or in a film shutting a car door.

In terms of general dynamics you could likely place a microphone your room, set two speakers to have the same average volume. Then record them playing back a track that has a wide dynamic presentation. Then examine the resulting spectrum/SPL. That might be close to telling.

For myself it often boils down to difference between a good sounding speaker and one that starts to actually sound real, like a live show.

Unfortunately there is still some debate about in what way dynamics is real, which seems strange after having listened to countless speakers over the years. Not sure why. An easy test would be to listen to a track on a typical 3" full range mini speaker and then on a high end 12"/4"1" horn loaded 3way something or other. If someone doesn't hear a dynamic difference then great. Save that $ and space.

There are many variables in this.
In a lot of cases it boils down to size and available power/power handling/efficiency and desired average playback levels.
With speakers of similar size and driver configuration it can come down to robustness of the drive units. If a tweeter can handle more SPL at high volumes and IMD is low vs one that is compressing, or a woofer that is compressing peaks vs one that still has power handling and xmax to give.
There may be Doppler effects and IMD in a 6" with high excursions vs a 15" producing the same bass SPL yet moving 1mm.
Dispersion can be a factor, do you like when the room is filled with diffuse energy or do you like a smaller more compact stage. I personally find the wide staging often sounds more dynamic if only due to the greater sense of scale, of largess - even at similar SPL.
Bass depth is a factor, having more down below can deff give more weight to what is above, more scale and impact lead to a sense of more dynamics throughout the audible range.
So some of this can be measured and some is just going to be based on personal preferences and interpretations.

In great speakers these may be only a couple or a few DB differences in output on peaks and such but in terms of being noticeable IMHO they are.
I was actually surprised at how dynamic I perceived the Revel M126be to be vs the KEF R3. It is visually much smaller and a 2way vs 3. It was a noticeable amount for me( yet both speakers had their own versions of very good sound as both can play very very loudly for their diminutive sizes.)

If the Reference 1 is an even more neutral and robust R3 and also with better dynamics, then that would be a very good thing.
Pair it with a couple channels of 250-500watt power and never look back.

Anyway, I am surely way over my allotment of tangents.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
In great speakers these may be only a couple or a few DB differences in output on peaks and such but in terms of being noticeable IMHO they are.
I was actually surprised at how dynamic I perceived the Revel M126be to be vs the KEF R3. It is visually much smaller and a 2way vs 3. It was a noticeable amount for me( yet both speakers had their own versions of very good sound as both can play very very loudly for their diminutive sizes.)

Just remember the fact that the R series can be '' boosted '' using a low-shelf filter, and the port tunning it's much lower, for that reason the slope is weaker and quite weird.

You cannot boost the m126be because the slope 100hz-20hz is already strong, one of the reason is because the port tunning is much higher in tunning vs the R series.

Even the F226BE have a much higher port tunning with the trade of a weak Low frequency extension
Revel%20F226Be%20FR_Linearity.png



The thing is the R series sometimes have a weird in room response because of the difference in the slope vs ports

For example here in the Erin measurements you can clearly see a weak slope but a strong port, the port is clearly much higher than the energy from 50hz-100hz.


These speakers needs a microphone in order to fix their bass response or a lot of luck (?)
PIR%20vs%20MIR.png

Early%20Reflections.png



The reference series, have woofers with higher output and also stronger slope.
Kef%20Reference%201%20Meta%20FR_Linearity.png
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
I have now watched the whole Erin:s video about Kef R1 meta, and one thing that was really interesting for me as a former DIY:er is the two different bass ports that comes with the loudspeaker. You can thus have more or less bass with different tuning of the speaker , depending on the room you have, and using the different length of the bass ports.

Using different port lenghts, in my opinion, is not entirely beneficial because:

1. There are really only one optimal length for the tube with an optimal box volume thats dependent entirely on the drivers TS parameters. With an optimal port lenght, you gain higher spl with almost no movement of the cone at the resonance frequency. Its better to optimise the tuning of the bassport with the exactly right length of the tube, and then eq the response with a dsp to get the best bass level and response in the listening room.

That said, its a nice possibility from Kef to offer this option, if you dont have the ability to eq the bass.
 

Attachments

  • 7C867908-C84A-4E2A-957D-A80B0C801046.jpeg
    7C867908-C84A-4E2A-957D-A80B0C801046.jpeg
    22.7 KB · Views: 109
Last edited:

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Another interesting thing with this loudspeaker - Kef uses an laminate aluminium baffle , probably to make it stiffer , and shifting resonances to a higher frequency and with a lower amplitude for an overall better sound. This costs money and also makes a real difference.
F048624B-6C9B-4B86-A9E0-0069C43D7AE2.jpeg
 

Ciobi69

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
399
Likes
254
My god, KEF, slow down, the competition can't keep up!
Check out Mission, B&W, Tannoy or Wharfedale, they seem dead in the water.

KEF is on a roll, just like B&W in the late 90ies (DM6xx, Nautilus). Seems they have a good bunch of marketing and engineers working for them.
I would like to find a pair of 802
 

Ciobi69

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2022
Messages
399
Likes
254
Not sure where you're located, but they pop up on Audio Mart regularly.
from italy sadly, they are not soo common, story wise they should be great speakers, the measurements wasnt bad for a speaker of that time imo
 

TheBatsEar

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
3,084
Likes
4,962
Location
Germany
I would like to find a pair of 802
The ferro fluid is dry and the sourrounds are hardened. They might be very different now.
 

AwesomeSauce2015

Active Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2022
Messages
198
Likes
189
Some folks are more attracted to a dynamic sound than others. Some prefer it so much that it is even priority 1, while others 180 degrees away, actually don't like dynamic sound - preferring a more subdued and mellow approach. It is not priority 1 for me but it is a high one. When a good sounding speaker has good dynamic qualities, that is usually where my toes start tapping and I can't help but love a speakers sound.

That's exactly what I feel too.
When I listen to a speaker with high dynamic capability (ie: JBL horns), then it just sounds so much more lifelike than less-dynamic speakers like the KEF r3, reference 1 (non-meta), r11, etc. There's just something that gets lost for me when I go from the high-efficiency horn tweeter to the domes used in most other speakers. It doesn't actually have to be a horn even, a friend has a pair of Martin Logan Motion 60XT towers with fairly good sensitivity. They still sounded clean, and had a level of lifelike sound even at high volume. But I still prefer constant-directivity horns as the ultimate dynamic, engaging (want to dance, with good music), lifelike sound setup... IDK why, I guess it's just that they have good directivity, and output.
 

hmt

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
397
Likes
479
Yea, but this is the Reference 1 Meta. It's in a different league than the R3 (subjectively to me) and definitely objectively.

(and it's also about 4-5x the cost so... )
It would be interesting to know how the R3 would have fared with a little shelving EQ to the treble.
 
Top Bottom