Advice between Kef R3 Meta or Buchardt S400 MKII ?

[Davide]

Hi everyone,

I'm about to build a new home system and I'm evaluating several speakers around 2k€.
Based on the measurements I narrowed it down to the Kef R3 Meta and the Buchardt S400 MKII.
Comparing the two loudspeakers in a blind test is almost impossible so I would like to understand if there is any reason to prefer one over the other.
I don't have the desire or time to order, try and send it back... I would like to go without fail.
My listening environment is a classic 30m2, slightly rectangular living room, with brick walls.
Kef seems to me to have an advantage from a technological point of view, but Buchardt seems to me to offer better value for money considering direct sales.
PS. There will also be two 12" subs.

What do you tell me?

 

[staticV3]

We have a spinorama of the S400 MKII.
But for the R3 Meta, we only have this.

 

[jonfitch]

I would guess the Kef probably has narrower horizontal dispersion but much better vertical axis response. Depends on what you value more.

 

[3125b]

That´s a pretty big room. Is there any chance you could fit floorstanders in there? Would probably be the better choice, first gen R7 are similar in price to R3 Meta for example.

 

[YSC]

Hi everyone,

I'm about to build a new home system and I'm evaluating several speakers around 2k€.
Based on the measurements I narrowed it down to the Kef R3 Meta and the Buchardt S400 MKII.
Comparing the two loudspeakers in a blind test is almost impossible so I would like to understand if there is any reason to prefer one over the other.
I don't have the desire or time to order, try and send it back... I would like to go without fail.
My listening environment is a classic 30m2, slightly rectangular living room, with brick walls.
Kef seems to me to have an advantage from a technological point of view, but Buchardt seems to me to offer better value for money considering direct sales.

What do you tell me?

personally I prefer the point source KEF with it's look, but for that big a room I wonders are you planning to get a sub for it? or if not listening pretty close up maybe you would want a floor stander

 

[Davide]

Sorry, I forgot, I'll also put two 12" subs in there. Therefore the low frequency response of the speakers is not much important.

 

[YSC]

Sorry, I forgot, I'll also put two 12" subs in there. Therefore the low frequency response of the speakers is not much important.

not sure if the mids and high SPL would be enough, but I bet it should be fine for both in sane listening levels, in the performance category I think you can't go wrong either speaker, but when low end isn't a problem I personally would definitely opt for the coaxial, imaging is just better and the great dispersion makes EQ very useful. (Ok, I admit I just love how KEF looks)

 

[Davide]

Okay. In the meantime, thanks for all your replies.

 

[HooStat]

They seem more or less equivalent to you. Therefore, I would get the KEF. The penalty for being wrong is much smaller if you start with the KEF. If you are unhappy, it will be much easier to sell them than the Buchardt.

 

[fineMen]

Hi everyone,

I'm about to build a new home system and I'm evaluating several speakers around 2k€.
Based on the measurements I narrowed it down to the Kef R3 Meta and the Buchardt S400 MKII.

...

PS. There will also be two 12" subs.

What do you tell me?

I'm a recently converted fanboy of KEF. But still taken this diclaimer into account, I never understood the high praise for the Buchardt 400s.

It shows deliberate resonance where you don't really want it, in the human voice's range namely, articulation (not singing) happens there (500Hz). The tweeter reportedly has had issues, so the x/over was shifted higher and so not to the benefit of vertical dispersion. That shows up in the main radiation axis of the speaker and so contradicts the baffle's tilt upwards, which circumstance I personally find perplexing.

The frequency response is not as smooth as you might wish for, and it doesn't get better off axis. Sound power is a bit uneven.

The build quality, panel thickness and such, is reportedly not as good. The driver material, esp/ bass is very good, nothing about it, but not suited to call for the price of the finished product.

In my book, and that's a quite personal take, the Buchardt provides a catchy look. Alas, it reveals by the baffle's tilt alone some inherent probs, that are not solved without some complications. See it as a trade-off. Not that appealing anymore?

The R3s: humble looks, but pretty well (huge understatement) executed construction wise and, hidden to the layman, very much in check of all the technical needs and more. The driver material is to die for, boy! It won't get any better, perplexing excellence!

It is a three-way which as such keeps intermodulation and phase distortion pretty much in check. I feel that the latter two are todays most challenging probs with speakers when it comes to the fun factor, speakers disappear, what have you.

No, reiterated, not any problem in distortion, resonances, frequency response on/off axis and so forth.

What was your question?

Ah--a sub will help with the quite dry alignment in bass--in case of a bigger room.

 

[RMW_NJ]

...

I'm a recently converted fanboy of KEF. But still taken this diclaimer into account, I never understood the high praise for the Buchardt 400s.

It shows deliberate resonance where you don't really want it, in the human voice's range namely, articulation (not singing) happens there (500Hz). The tweeter reportedly has had issues, so the x/over was shifted higher and so not to the benefit of vertical dispersion. That shows up in the main radiation axis of the speaker and so contradicts the baffle's tilt upwards, which circumstance I personally find perplexing.

The frequency response is not as smooth as you might wish for, and it doesn't get better off axis. Sound power is a bit uneven.

The build quality, panel thickness and such, is reportedly not as good. The driver material, esp/ bass is very good, nothing about it, but not suited to call for the price of the finished product.

In my book, and that's a quite personal take, the Buchardt provides a catchy look. Alas, it reveals by the baffle's tilt alone some inherent probs, that are not solved without some complications. See it as a trade-off. Not that appealing anymore?

The R3s: humble looks, but pretty well (huge understatement) executed construction wise and, hidden to the layman, very much in check of all the technical needs and more. The driver material is to die for, boy! It won't get any better, perplexing excellence!

It is a three-way which as such keeps intermodulation and phase distortion pretty much in check. I feel that the latter two are todays most challenging probs with speakers when it comes to the fun factor, speakers disappear, what have you.

No, reiterated, not any problem in distortion, resonances, frequency response on/off axis and so forth.

What was your question?

Ah--a sub will help with the quite dry alignment in bass--in case of a bigger room.

You appear to be talking about the S400 MKI. Virtually all of that has been remedied in S400 MKII. Lower crossover point. Braced cabinet. Smoother frequency response and dispersion.

Measurements are available on Buchardt’s website, which have historically been from Warkwyn.

 

[Steven Holt]

I've only heard the R3's, and I've only read/viewed the online reviews of the Buchardt. It seems that the bass response is better on the Buchardt's, and the mid and treble is better on the KEF's. Now, you're going to have two subwoofer's in the room, so the bass will not be an issue. I own the KEF Q150's, and I can tell you the midrange -- the most important part of any speaker, IMO -- is excellent. I can only imagine what it would be like on the R3's (for me it would be an endgame speaker). Based on this, I would strongly recommend that you go with the KEF R3. Paired with two subs and a high quality amp (which I'm sure you have), the sound should be nothing short of wonderful.

 

[fineMen]

You appear to be talking about the S400 MKI. Virtually all of that has been remedied in S400 MKII. Lower crossover point. Braced cabinet. Smoother frequency response and dispersion.

So all the Mark-1 buyers are even more satisfied with having the rare original rendition? Only that you say the Mark-2 is the real product.

I'm honest saying that I don't care for either. You're right in saying that the Mark-2 eventually came out not that bad. How does it compare to (nearly) perfect? Just guessing.

 

[YSC]

So all the Mark-1 buyers are even more satisfied with having the rare original rendition? Only that you say the Mark-2 is the real product.

I'm honest saying that I don't care for either. You're right in saying that the Mark-2 eventually came out not that bad. How does it compare to (nearly) perfect? Just guessing.

it is pretty decent for the mk II, though personally if I have to buy from them I will opt for the active purifi version

S400 MKII

S400 Passive Loudspeakers

buchardtaudio.com

on axis is what I would consider flat, a directivity error 200-400hz, but not too severe for that, though personally I still think the KEF is superior, but considering it's decent and IF personal preference of the look or brand or whatever reason, I would say it will still be a good choice

 

[fineMen]

it is pretty decent for the mk II, though personally if I have to buy from them I will opt for the active purifi version

S400 MKII

S400 Passive Loudspeakers

buchardtaudio.com

on axis is what I would consider flat, a directivity error 200-400hz, but not too severe for that, though personally I still think the KEF is superior, but considering it's decent and IF personal preference of the look or brand or whatever reason, I would say it will still be a good choice

Thing is, as a former DIYer I tinkered with designs like the Buchardt about 10 years ago. From that I know relatively precisely how much effort went into the development. I argue most of it was to negotiate with China regarding cost, quality etc. I won't disregard the work, but I only compare it to the latest achievements on the side of KEF (in-house drivers, problem solving capabilities, clearly advanced general concept) which down handed superseed Neuman or Genelec. There's much followship for the Buchardt on youtube for example. The subtext always wispers outsider, speaker-buddy not to forget cool genius etc. For me personally, given the above mentioned background, it is a mere hype, launched with intent to the uninformed, who knows?

 

[Davide]

All the above opinions are very interesting. I deduce that Kef may be the better choice on paper.
Honestly, the problems of shadow flare and woofer shift left me a little perplexed, at least as far as the quality of Kef is concerned.
Buchardt for its part offers a 10-year guarantee, which isn't bad for a €2k item.

 

[tbokris]

I don't have either and haven't had either. But was curious about both.

KEF: Reading about how the shadow flare works itself out of the cabinet and has to be pushed back in left me thinking the design (which is beautiful) is not all that practical.

Buchardt: I was concerned about the bass hype also. The bass probably is very impressive, but perhaps after a while the novelty of that will wear off? Also, I don't buy the argument that selling direct means these speakers would really be "worth" double the price. Really it just means selling direct means they can operate as a small business and make a profit at that price.

Both are nice looking speakers, both are probably fine. If it was me, and I was planning on having subs, then I would pick the KEFs hands down. They would be better for close listening too.

 

[fineMen]

All the above opinions are very interesting. I deduce that Kef may be the better choice on paper.
Honestly, the problems of shadow flare and woofer shift left me a little perplexed, at least as far as the quality of Kef is concerned.
Buchardt for its part offers a 10-year guarantee, which isn't bad for a €2k

There is another thread on the recently published 'white paper' on the new 'meta' series of KEF. Please look into the details. The 'meta' midrange now sports undercuttings in its steel (!) magnet system. They are filled with an uncut ring of copper to prevent self induction and henceforth intermodulation. The bass now sports a similar technique to bring distortion down from 0.1%, which is virtually nothing to even less.

Can you imagine how much engineering effort goes into this? I, for the time being cannot even imagine how those parts are made! The drivers are virtually cost-no-object items.

The Buchardt uses (semi?) stock drivers, which admittedly are quite fine. But no comparison to the KEFs, it would be hilarious, really.

My point here, I always thought that Buchardt doesn't bring anything new to the table, from the DIYer's perpective. Waveguide etc was discussed ad nauseam in forums 10y ago. There are so much successful makes of that type. Did you know that for a hobbyist the driver used in the 400Mk2 costs 70$ max? Accidentially I have two here as spares collecting dust due to neglect. They are by design and purpose especially easy to work with. Eventually, where's the beef?!

But if you're picky on a 0,5mm de-centered cosmetic plastic trim ring, so be it ;-)

 

[Davide]

There is another thread on the recently published 'white paper' on the new 'meta' series of KEF. Please look into the details. The 'meta' midrange now sports undercuttings in its steel (!) magnet system. They are filled with an uncut ring of copper to prevent self induction and henceforth intermodulation. The bass now sports a similar technique to bring distortion down from 0.1%, which is virtually nothing to even less.

Can you imagine how much engineering effort goes into this? I, for the time being cannot even imagine how those parts are made! The drivers are virtually cost-no-object items.

The Buchardt uses (semi?) stock drivers, which admittedly are quite fine. But no comparison to the KEFs, it would be hilarious, really.

My point here, I always thought that Buchardt doesn't bring anything new to the table, from the DIYer's perpective. Waveguide etc was discussed ad nauseam in forums 10y ago. There are so much successful makes of that type. Did you know that for a hobbyist the driver used in the 400Mk2 costs 70$ max? Accidentially I have two here as spares collecting dust due to neglect. They are by design and purpose especially easy to work with. Eventually, where's the beef?!

But if you're picky on a 0,5mm de-centered cosmetic plastic trim ring, so be it ;-)

Thanks for your point of view. As far as I'm concerned, driver decentralization is a simple sign of non-quality. Today it can be that... tomorrow it can be the motor screwing up on bad assembly.
And when you've spent €2k and the guarantee is over... you think: perhaps a speaker with a 10-year warranty and a more traditional design was better.
It happened to me with my car... I ended up throwing away thousands of euros to have a technological gem of an engine, failed after 2 years (I choosed VW instead of Toyota).
This is just to say… in practice I obviously find the Kef brand good, and that will probably be the one I go for.

 

[Ricardojoa]

To me , no question is the R3. The buchart is great but it doesn’t seem like a good value once you factor in the cost of drivers, cabinet’s construction…