Near Field 2 meter distance and below -> LS50 Meta with subwoofer.
Anything else KEF R3 with subwoofer.
Anything else KEF R3 with subwoofer.
Last edited:
-
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 LS50 Meta vs KEF R3
- Thread starter Descartes
- Start date
R3 behaves the same, no? Aside from the asymmetrical aesthetics, a sideways R3 is still a better outright performer if the space allows for it.
although, in the real world it's not that straightforward of course. just using your setup as an example, I'd probably get another pair of LS50 Meta's simply because keeping L/C/R identical can make your life easier when it's time to apply DSP. Assuming you have room for it, the "spare" could be used as mono surround back.
Metas may be purchased individually, so no need to purchase them as a pair and have a spare you will have little use for.
Last edited:
I may be a little weird, but I just purchased a pair of R3s for nearfield desktop use....
BrokenEnglishGuy
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,936
- Likes
- 1,158
, 1.65m triangle
Last edited:
If you're not playing loud, maybe it doesn't matter, but with the LS50 and a sub, you're still getting IMD/doppler distortion with the midrange moving so much since it has to handle stuff starting around 80hz.
If you can do stereo subwoofers and cross them significantly higher, that could be a solution, but the R3 and a sub is going from a 3 way to a 4 way and the midrange isn't hardly going to move at all so you don't have to worry as much, and won't be experiencing one of the drawbacks of 2 way coaxial monitors.
The center channel thing mentioned previously is an issue though. In my Genelec and Kali system I will probably end up with an IN-8 V2 placed sideways. I don't think this will be too big of an issue as Kali crosses over the woofer at a point where the distance of the tweeter to the woofer is less than 1/4 the wavelength of the crossover frequency which means that acoustically we hear it as a point source.
Not sure what the measurements are on the R3, but you could perform the same calculation to see if it will be perceived as a point source:
If you can do stereo subwoofers and cross them significantly higher, that could be a solution, but the R3 and a sub is going from a 3 way to a 4 way and the midrange isn't hardly going to move at all so you don't have to worry as much, and won't be experiencing one of the drawbacks of 2 way coaxial monitors.
The center channel thing mentioned previously is an issue though. In my Genelec and Kali system I will probably end up with an IN-8 V2 placed sideways. I don't think this will be too big of an issue as Kali crosses over the woofer at a point where the distance of the tweeter to the woofer is less than 1/4 the wavelength of the crossover frequency which means that acoustically we hear it as a point source.
Not sure what the measurements are on the R3, but you could perform the same calculation to see if it will be perceived as a point source:
I'd love to hear that head to head with some Kali's. Should have better on axis response compared to the Kali IN-8 V2 that I use, just wish they made a powered Kef R3!
MarkWinston
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2021
- Messages
- 736
- Likes
- 579
You have all the measurements you need here for the Meta and R3 so you can use those as a guide. But please do go listen to both yourself then decide. When I listened to the Metas and R3, I definitely prefered how the Metas sound, even without a sub. It was in a medium room, maybe 40 square meters or so. Sitting around 3 meters away, volume was cranked and it was loud. Higher than 85db is my guess. Dont even start to think that the R3 sounds like a Meta with an additional woofer, it is not. The Metas have better clarity and not as dark as the R3. Overall presentation is different. The R3 has better low end, but SQ wise, that is all they have over the Metas. You have to listen to them for yourself.
Last edited:
BrokenEnglishGuy
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,936
- Likes
- 1,158
I think is not about ''clarity'', is just another Frequency response, depending of what you prefer and listen, you are going to like another.
But you can always EQ the metas or R3 depending what you like.
R3 are cleaner in THD even at 86dB, also don't have IMD like LS50M.
Someone think the R3 is '' dark '' and others think is very neutral, others think its bright. But with ''toe-in'' the R series change the FR a little bit, so if you are a owner you can play a lot with that.
Last edited:
I actually went "backwards" from (cheap) active (JBL 305 MKII) to passive. From my reading of the measurements the R3's closest competitors are the Genelec Ones. Even after factoring in an amp they're also 2 to 3 times more expensive depending on if you go for the 8341 or 8351.
I'd love to have a pair of 8351's, but I decided to keep a more reasonable budget.
Yeah, they are quite the expense. I got my 2.1 used, so it was half price for the 8260 pair and half price for the subwoofer... I'd also argue that in some ways, perhaps especially if it's just a two channel system, the 8260 might be better due to the wider dispersion and deeper extension if I'm reading their off axis graphs correctly.
For a lower priced nearfield setup I honestly like the Phantom Reactors though the perception here is them being lifestyle speakers. Napilopez measured them and they are quite even handed tonally, and have great off axis response... I also like that they follow equal loudness contours somewhat with bass: You can still hear it at low volumes and it's great.
Last edited:
BrokenEnglishGuy
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2020
- Messages
- 1,936
- Likes
- 1,158
Maybe its a trade?
Point source coaxial vs wider dispersion
The first it's harder to do well
tjkadar
Member
R3 or meta LS50? What a dilemma! Seriously, either of these are good choices and I doubt one would be disappointed with either. One is not better than the other, they are just different. Only you can answer which will be the best pick for your situation and your room. Find a dealer that will let you bring both home, try them in your room, and decide. Failing that, get the R3, integrate that monster with your sub, and crank up the volume.
Or do the same with the metas... either way, you're getting some of the best passive speakers in the price range for your system.
Or do the same with the metas... either way, you're getting some of the best passive speakers in the price range for your system.
This is how I roughly estimate how loud a speaker can be played with a crossover in place, others can chime in if my logic is terrible. I take the distortion measurements at 86 and 96 db or whatever I can find if it's at Soundstage for example and see where I need to crossover to minimize the worst distortion. Also, as we know THD is not very audible in the bass frequencies but my thoughts are more along the lines of the speaker probably being close to it's limits if distortion is spiking and remember IMD distortion is a bigger deal with 2-way coaxials so the higher we cross them over the less excursion from the midwoofer and therefore less IMD distortion. Anyway here are Amir's distortion measurements for reference:
Now you can see the 86db level is already pretty good and a 100Hz 2nd order high pass will have it below 1% THD and be no problem at all, this is also loud enough for many people already. Now at the 96 db level the LS50 is definitely more stressed and approaching its limits and a 100Hz crossover will help but it will be around 3% distortion at 100Hz and I'm not sure if the cone excursions would still be high because I don't really listen that loud. Just based on the measurement I would be more comfortable around 120Hz for the crossover if I regularly listened in the 90+ db range at my listening position. With a 100Hz crossover I think you'll be fine around 85db at your listening position but not a whole lot more. Another good way to approach this is to simply set your crossover and listen at your loudest levels and see how much cone excursion you're getting, if you can barely see it moving like me then you're good but if it's moving in and out wildly then it's most likely producing a decent amount of IMD distortion.
Safest bet is to use two subs and cross over at 140-150.
My setup is Kef R3 + a pair of Rythmik L22s. I had the R3s first, otherwise I might well have gone with the LS50s. I expect they would be great paired with the LS50 precisely because the subs can cross as high as 200Hz. OTOH, R3 + L12s may actually be cheaper than LS50+L22s.
Yes in a stereo setup that would work fine, my problem is I use them in a 5.1 setup and have to think about localization from the center and surrounds so I personally try to go lower and 100Hz is fine for my listening levels. For a stereo setup for loud listening levels, 150 would sound great and really allow them to rock out with minimal distortion I agree.
Why not R2C for the center?
Similar threads
