• 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 R3 meta Measurements

GD Fan

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
932
Likes
1,699
Location
NY, NY USA
Based on this graph it may be my next speaker.

11.png


3359513-middle.png
 

ROOSKIE

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
1,917
Likes
3,396
Location
Minneapolis
Judging on OP's conclusions:
"Bass is weak"

The original R3 never had that issue.
Original R3 always had great bass considering the size
Hi, in my testing and experience the R3 had okay bass for a 3 way with a 6.5" driver as the lower unit.
The port made audible junk below tunning. I always used some sort of high pass even in 2.0.

Reality is that two 6.5", modest excursion drivers can only do so much. Any 8" higher excursion 'subwoofer' would out do a pair of R3's.
Remember 2, 6.5" drive units are about the same SD as a good sized 8". Yes a single 8-9" driver. Give that 8 extra excursion and you already have more output. Now think bigger.

So, in my expereince it was very decent given the design but it was not substantial or out of the ordinary. YMMV based on room size and content and desired SPL levels.


Given its size, the R3 meta has an excellent bass response (FR).

However, to achieve this beautiful bandwidth, the KEF uses ports, which lose a bit of their power at high SPL.

I respect the design of KEF's engineers.

However, contrary to the impression you might get from the FR graph, this speaker is a bit weak on momentary peaks, such as movie explosions.

Again, this is an unnecessary nitpicking about a good enough loudspeaker.
:)
I agree and felt that in my medium sized room subs were required for a fleshed out bass response and a full expereince. Alse to help clear up some dirt in the port output.

I used a 70-90hrz high pass which seemed a great match.

Very good speakers, just not bass monsters by any means.
 

Rja4000

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
2,682
Likes
4,220
Location
Liège, Belgium
I am representing THD relative data as CHD.
This is the percentage of each HD component based on the average SPL from 200 Hz to 10 kHz.
That seems a very good idea !

But I think what really matters is the frequency and combined levels of the harmonics at their resulting frequencies. Not at the fundamental frequency.

That's also why I find Multitone so interesting: you see the combined result.
.
 
Last edited:

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Thank you very much for those measurements, could you maybe plot some direct comparison plots to the old R3, for example for 96 dB MD relative to fundamental and 6/12 dB horizontal bandwidth?
This review shows that different quality of the drive units makes all the difference - this speaker has apparently better motors in the uniQ driver than the old R3.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,212
This review shows that different quality of the drive units makes all the difference - this speaker has apparently better motors in the uniQ driver than the old R3.
I never claimed the opposite, did I? By the way personally I wouldn't say "all the difference" but from a very good loudspeaker a superb one, in the end from point of audibility what counts more still like Toole says is linearity, directivity and bass, distortions come later and are mainly relevant at high SPLs.
 

martijn86

Active Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
271
Likes
975
Location
The Netherlands
Looking at the measurements, I'd personally cross over a KC62 subwoofer at 50Hz with an open port (based on the compression data) or 60Hz with a closed port (based on the frequency response). Would be a terrific value for money.
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,636
Likes
2,754
Looking at the measurements, I'd personally cross over a KC62 subwoofer at 50Hz with an open port (based on the compression data) or 60Hz with a closed port (based on the frequency response). Would be a terrific value for money.
I'd go for a 92. Better SPL in not much larger size.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
I never claimed the opposite, did I? By the way personally I wouldn't say "all the difference" but from a very good loudspeaker a superb one, in the end from point of audibility what counts more still like Toole says is linearity, directivity and bass, distortions come later and are mainly relevant at high SPLs.
The better drivers probably explains the much higher price for this loudspeaker.
Edit: not sure of this.
 
Last edited:

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
Another comparison, measurements made by Nuyes.

FBFDE51B-0462-4B96-AF47-38A4DF98D291.png
21E7C3A2-965A-4649-9F2A-454DED011FF5.png
 

dogmamann

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 16, 2022
Messages
809
Likes
507
The better drivers probably explains the much higher price for this loudspeaker.
Edit: not sure of this.
From the engineering point of view, yes! From Manufacturing point of view some differences here and there, almost same amount metal, and wow nice margin. Cost difference to produce the old good driver and the new better driver would be less than 10 bucks if am not wrong!
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,212
The better drivers probably explains the much higher price for this loudspeaker.
I guess the price increase is more inflation and marketing related, since KEF engineers their own drivers and the highest costs are the R&D and not the materials.
 

Tangband

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,994
Likes
2,789
Location
Sweden
I guess the price increase is more inflation and marketing related, since KEF engineers their own drivers and the highest costs are the R&D and not the materials.
You may be right.
Maybe what we see is also some impact of the Meta technique, possible sandwich constructed cabinet and slightly different crossover component values ?
( shows in the better directivity )
The new Meta speaker is also bigger than the older and cheaper r3, this might possible give more deeper bass, depending on the tuning ?
 
Last edited:

dogmamann

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 16, 2022
Messages
809
Likes
507
You may be right.
Maybe what we see is also some impact of the Meta technique, possible sandwich constructed cabinet and slightly different crossover component values ?
( shows in the better directivity )
The new Meta speaker is also bigger than the older and cheaper r3, this might possible give more deeper bass, depending on the tuning ?
It isn’t bigger
 

anphex

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
662
Likes
870
Location
Berlin, Germany
The compression measurement is cool!
 

Sokel

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 8, 2021
Messages
5,844
Likes
5,787
Is it a little hot high or is just me seeing it wrong?
Specially at the crucial 3Khz.
 

Vacceo

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
2,636
Likes
2,754
Given its size, the R3 meta has an excellent bass response (FR).

However, to achieve this beautiful bandwidth, the KEF uses ports, which lose a bit of their power at high SPL.

I respect the design of KEF's engineers.

However, contrary to the impression you might get from the FR graph, this speaker is a bit weak on momentary peaks, such as movie explosions.

Again, this is an unnecessary nitpicking about a good enough loudspeaker.
:)
I Guess that any user that wants a system for film/video will probably use a subwoofer and that should compensate.

Sure, not an excuse for the speaker, but it is a limitation assumed in a larger system.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,755
Likes
16,212
Maybe what we see is also some impact of the Meta technique, possible sandwich constructed cabinet and slightly different crossover component values ?
( shows in the better directivity )
We see in the end the result of several changes, from driver motor to crossover tuning. I am sure in the upcoming white paper their individual impact will be shown with comparison measurements.
 
Top Bottom