Advice between Kef R3 Meta or Buchardt S400 MKII ?

[sweetchaos]

Just create a 2-choice poll and you’ll see the popular opinion.

 

[VintageFlanker]

Just create a 2-choice poll and you’ll see the popular opinion.

There's no need for that, IMHO, people will just vote by what they think it's best based on their own preference (or just on-axis response...). Not sure it would be helpful.

Both are measuring good enough, objectively speaking. What he does need now is experiencing both at home, in his real environment, and return the one he doesn't like.

AFAIC, it's funny to read how the (1st Gen) R3 is praised here, comparing to my experience and how unremarkable they sound to me. And I know countless people that share the same thoughts (by the way, Amir himself wasn't a fan either, just saying). Sure, this does have some very strong points: distorsion, vertical directivity etc, and I found it to be great in nearfield conditions.
Another thing that's weird is judging Buchardt by the cost if drivers, like if designing speakers was just assembling parts with no care for research... Guess what: Revel also uses similarly-priced SB Acoustics drivers and I've heard no one complaining here.

I would be glad to give the new Meta a try, tho. But I would pick S400MkII anyday over the 1st Gen R3. My two cents.

 

[Ricardojoa]

There's no need for that, IMHO, people will just vote by what they think it's best based on their own preference (or just on-axis response...). Not sure it would be helpful.

Both are measuring good enough, objectively speaking. What he does need now is experiencing both at home, in his real environment, and return the one he doesn't like.

AFAIC, it's funny to read how the (1st Gen) R3 is praised here, comparing to my experience and how unremarkable they sound to me. And I know countless people that share the same thoughts (by the way, Amir himself wasn't a fan either, just saying). Sure, this does have some very strong points: distorsion, vertical directivity etc, and I found it to be great in nearfield conditions.
Another thing that's weird is judging Buchardt by the cost if drivers, like if designing speakers was just assembling parts with no care for research... Guess what: Revel also uses similarly-priced SB Acoustics drivers and I've heard no one complaining here.

I would be glad to give the new Meta a try, tho. But I would pick S400MkII anyday over the 1st Gen R3. My two cents.

Whats more weird is that some people get offended because someone brings up a good point on parts cost and build techniques. Revel doesnt use 20 dollars tweeter, it doesn’t use unbraced cabinets , it doesn’t use 15 mm thick cab. I think buchardt should have avoided all these short cuts in the beginning. That clear didn’t give me any good impression .

 

[VintageFlanker]

Whats more weird is that some people get offended because someone brings up a good point on parts cost and build techniques.

I'm not sure who is "offended" on that matter...

 

[fineMen]

Thanks for your point of view. As far as I'm concerned, driver decentralization is a simple sign of non-quality.

May I raise more concerns? KEF relies on some other plastic to dampen the enclosure panels. Is this solution durable, I mean over the decades? Same regarding the high frequency damper in the coax itself. The coil is isolated against the cone by an interface piece, the elastic properties of which are presumably quite critical.

The paint job isn't as good as I initially thought. It has a clearly visible waviness to it. Especially in the black color scheme some light reflections appear slightly distorted. If you think of a glider plane, and it was the wings, that would be another no-no. It spoils laminar flow!

All in all the China made (?) Buchardt may easily compete with the definitely China made KEF. And due to its less elaborated, more basic construction it may be more durable. Not the least the Buchardt may have higher resell value if the brand takes of.

Another thing that's weird is judging Buchardt by the cost if drivers, like if designing speakers was just assembling parts with no care for research..

Is this an answer to my question where the beef is with the Buchardt, the research as you put it? As said, Buchardt follows a line that was layed out in DIY forums about 10y back. One could say that Buchardt represents the collective wisdom of amateurs. Quite personal, unquestionable preferrences, as usual in DIY, the tweeter choice I think, add some funk to it. The silghtly slanted baffle is cost effective (once the tools are set up), and so the Buchardts have an undeniable cool factor.

The KEF is just grey dusty scientific engineering, which most people don't grasp anyway, and so don't care naturally.

AFAIC, it's funny to read how the (1st Gen) R3 is praised here, comparing to my experience and how unremarkable they sound to me.

Bass is shelved down as to cope with expected room gain in smaller environments, especially with the couch set against a wall. It is not so that most people are seated at a mixing console in the middle of a treated room, or have, as always depicted in the advertizing, an endless living room of 123+ square meters.

I leave it as that. I'm afraifd I'm preocupied too much against one of the contenders.

 

[Davide]

AFAIC, it's funny to read how the (1st Gen) R3 is praised here, comparing to my experience and how unremarkable they sound to me. And I know countless people that share the same thoughts (by the way, Amir himself wasn't a fan either, just saying).

May I ask which speakers are remarkable for you and what listening environment do you have?
I really appreciate "different" opinions about KEF, and that was actually what I was looking for.

 

[thewas]

AFAIC, it's funny to read how the (1st Gen) R3 is praised here, comparing to my experience and how unremarkable they sound to me. And I know countless people that share the same thoughts (by the way, Amir himself wasn't a fan either, just saying)

Amir initially didn't like the 1st gen R3 much due to a room mode and when later correcting it as he did for most loudspeakers after he enjoyed its sound.
Anyway I thought the discussion here was about R3 Meta as we are also not discussing the S400 MKI?

 

[VintageFlanker]

as we are also not discussing the S400 MKI?

Looks like at least someone still is...

May I ask which speakers are remarkable for you and what listening environment do you have?

In the exact same price range, I ended up with Dyn Evoke 20 as my last passive bookshelves (I use only actives since fall 2020). 25M2 (untreated) living room, listening position at 3 meters, or 20M2 dedicated room for movies and music listening (yet to be treated), with LP at 2.5M.

I really appreciate "different" opinions about KEF, and that was actually what I was looking for.

Again, not sure that whatever "opinion" will help you in any way. You have the objective data, you may give them a listen, by now. IMHO, speakers are not amps or DAC, that may be bought blind based only on measured performance. These are way more dependent of subjective preferences, and room interactions...

 

[Davide]

Again, not sure that whatever "opinion" will help you in any way. You have the objective data, you may give them a listen, by now. IMHO, speakers are not amps or DAC, that may be bought blind based only on measured performance. These are way more dependent of subjective preferences, and room interactions...

Opinions derived from personal experience I mean, like yours.
I am aware that I should try, but effective proof would be a blind comparison which it is difficult to do for me.
Another curiosity. Did you use DSP or correction systems in your selection process that led you to choose the Dyn Evoke? Or just "raw" response?

 

[fineMen]

May I ask which speakers are remarkable for you and what listening environment do you have?
I really appreciate "different" opinions about KEF, and that was actually what I was looking for.

A general advice. Regardless of 'meta' or 'mark2' some folks actually prefer speakers that lend some drama to the 'music'. Times and again, when briefly listening to recommendations on Tidal I feel that most of contemporary productions need that extra spicing. Think of the unevitable colorations added by a smartphone speaker (stereo of course), today's consumers' primary source of cultural identity.

When listening to the music intentionally, instead of listening to the speakers for another purpose, such artistic musical product easily becomes boring, especially for audiophiles. That's due to the audiophile's natural urge for musical expression. Because the speakers are logically expected to be neutral, me thinks. I'm not denying the term 'audiophile' for those who prefer that before mentioned drama queens in their living rooms. They have something to give likewise. Think of more traditional values like blinking treble, full bass, accentuated midrange and prudence of ownership. A matter of perspective, if you will.

 

[3125b]

If you´re after opinions I can offer mine:
I recently switched from 2-way monitors (Focal Alpha 65 Evo, but doesn´t matter what exactly) to KEF R5 (on short DIY stands) for my desktop setup. And I wouldn´t want to go back to traditional speakers, not even really good ones.
I run them in a 2.1 system using REW for room correction without a highpass (just lowpass on sub) because that gives me the best in-room response and the speakers can easily handle it.
The coaxial design is much superior for near field use imo because the smooth vertical directivity means that I can lean back in my chiar and still have unchanged sound. The further you are away from the speakers the less of an issue bad vertical directivity becomes of course.

 

[YSC]

May I raise more concerns? KEF relies on some other plastic to dampen the enclosure panels. Is this solution durable, I mean over the decades? Same regarding the high frequency damper in the coax itself. The coil is isolated against the cone by an interface piece, the elastic properties of which are presumably quite critical.

The paint job isn't as good as I initially thought. It has a clearly visible waviness to it. Especially in the black color scheme some light reflections appear slightly distorted. If you think of a glider plane, and it was the wings, that would be another no-no. It spoils laminar flow!

All in all the China made (?) Buchardt may easily compete with the definitely China made KEF. And due to its less elaborated, more basic construction it may be more durable. Not the least the Buchardt may have higher resell value if the brand takes of.


Is this an answer to my question where the beef is with the Buchardt, the research as you put it? As said, Buchardt follows a line that was layed out in DIY forums about 10y back. One could say that Buchardt represents the collective wisdom of amateurs. Quite personal, unquestionable preferrences, as usual in DIY, the tweeter choice I think, add some funk to it. The silghtly slanted baffle is cost effective (once the tools are set up), and so the Buchardts have an undeniable cool factor.

The KEF is just grey dusty scientific engineering, which most people don't grasp anyway, and so don't care naturally.


Bass is shelved down as to cope with expected room gain in smaller environments, especially with the couch set against a wall. It is not so that most people are seated at a mixing console in the middle of a treated room, or have, as always depicted in the advertizing, an endless living room of 123+ square meters.

I leave it as that. I'm afraifd I'm preocupied too much against one of the contenders.

for decades long I doubt any could guarantee longer life expectancy, and in 10 years so much could go wrong or just one gets the GAS and wanted to upgrade, trust me, when GAS kicks in you would want "look, honey, it's broken !!"

 

[dshreter]

To me this seems to clearly be a case where you should get the speaker that looks better in your living room.

 

[fineMen]

To me this seems to clearly be a case where you should get the speaker that looks better in your living room.

Buy a Burchardt for the many reasons layed out here!

 

[YSC]

Sure, referring to my post #30 I listened to some renditions of the old song "I see you". Don't know who owns it, but The Byrds' take, in my book, earns quite high credit for doing it right. The contemporary name-sakes nearly made me vomit. I won't exemplify an this.

Buy a Burchardt for the many reasons layed out here!

somehow I always think, objective performance have a line of "good enough", when both performed to certain point of performance, other values such as look or brand or price and even other gimmick can be valued more on the decision, afterall we are not buying working tool where objective performance weights more, it's for entertainment/enjoyment, so once achieving "good enough" then IMO it's at the point of diminishing return, and other things like look and brand would provide more enjoyment to the user than shear bit better performance

 

[fineMen]

somehow I always think, objective performance have a line of "good enough", ...

Sorry for my quite personal take on this. The "good enough" is something we can clearly agree on.

But firstly that may apply even to the looks in the very details of e/g barely visible decentered plastic trim rings of no further performance impact. What do you expect for an amount of money you--or some other, possibly wouldn't even pick up from the street?

Second to that I was already quite clear about the merits of the other speaker. In my book it doesn't rank that high. You know the saga of Superman, the x-ray view? I have it with technology, in parts at least. I look through the design and arrangements. The intellectual work gone into the product congeals into some material, it is a "thing" for its own. It can be very pleasing to know about generous work, but likewise a less giving attitude could spoil a product entirely.

I'm especially less amused about the very fact that at least some people are tricked by the exotic look of the other speaker. It mekaes them feel positive about the product. It should be the opposite way round--unsolved electrical probs in the x/o, and nothing, really, else motivates such proportions.

One specimen stands on solid engineering grounds, literally represents the pinnacle of what can be done today so far so, that any further perfection appears as mindless over-doing.
The other specimen reflects the amateurs' view and, as some sort of spicing, sports personal certainties of no further merit, let alone standing interpersonal critical reasoning.

Finally, the customer is always right.

 

[goldenears]

I have original R3 and they are great. I want neutral speakers with very low distortion in a beautiful package, and that's what they provide.

I've seen many examples on forums of Kef standing by their products too, even sending replacement drivers out to people who have had children put their fingers through the driver on long out of warranty speakers. And the secondhand market for really old Kef speakers is still strong.

So longevity-wise I'm also on the Kef train. Buchardt, who knows? Kef was founded in 1961, Buchardt in 2013. So hopefully they are still around should you need to claim a 10-year warranty.

I certainly wouldn't question how long the R3 might last... How could anyone fault the materials engineering of Kef?? If you read the white papers, it is very clear that they are materials engineering masters.

On top of that, Kef is very well known, so it's very likely I can resell them fairly easily should I want to upgrade, and that is precisely what I did do with my old Q-series speakers. 6 years after I bought them, I sold them for 66% of the original price I bought them new. Not bad for entry level speakers I sold 10 years after their release date!

How much could I expect to get for an S400 mk1 if I sold it now? Or whatever speaker Buchardt had available in 2017?

I do like the aesthetic look of the Buchardts, in a vacuum but I agree with other posters in questioning the engineering behind the weird look.

The piano finish looks great to me. It's not meant to be perfectly square, the reflections aren't meant to be like a mirror, I like the slightly distorted reflections, makes it look more "liquid". They remind me of an actual piano.

The Kefs have so many positives that personally I don't envy any other speaker.

Happy R3 customer here... There's nothing I can fault them on.

Overblown worrying about a trim ring seems crazy to me. If it came off (which mine hasn't), I would push it back on. Problem solved.

I don't really understand some who say they're boring. They play whatever music I put through them, accurately as the music was recorded. They're clinical. If I want to listen to exciting music, I put exciting music through them. If I want relaxing music, I put relaxing music through them.

I don't really understand how speakers could make music more exciting without sacrificing accuracy... Maybe if I had multiple different speakers set up in my living room then I'd want a range of different options? As it is, I only have one living room and with the gigantic range of different music and TV mastering, I want speakers that are accurate.

 

[regan]

I use only actives since fall 2020

Which actives did you try and would recommend? Not a lot of talk about actives on here..

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Which actives did you try and would recommend? Not a lot of talk about actives on here..

Ton of threads (and reviews) about actives here such as Neumann, Genelec and some others. Where Neumann and Genelec measure really really well and would certainly be worth a look.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Whats more weird is that some people get offended because someone brings up a good point on parts cost and build techniques. Revel doesnt use 20 dollars tweeter, it doesn’t use unbraced cabinets , it doesn’t use 15 mm thick cab. I think buchardt should have avoided all these short cuts in the beginning. That clear didn’t give me any good impression .

The drivers in my Revel M16's are very inexpensive 'looking'. You would not be impressed. A button tweeter and stamped steel basket woofer. I bet Harman makes that button tweeter for $2-5.
Doesn't matter as you can make a great speaker with very average parts, especially average 'looking' parts.
My set of M126be's does use more obviously expensive drivers. With big beefy motors/magnets with nice heafty baskets.

Whatever, the drivers Buchart is using are very decent and a high quality speaker can be made with them.

You can also smartly make thin unbraced or minimally braced cabinets work well.

Design is one trade off for another and there are many ways to find success.

The NHT speaker in OP's avatar uses really cheap drivers. The woofer is total crap and yet the speaker is quit decent if not a little trebble forward. (definitely needs subs and a high pass.)

@regan my experience with the original R3 is that it is a 5/5 superb speaker that would just not be my 1st choice for myself. Make no mistake that the R3 is superbly crafted and easily worth retail price - honestly I feel comfortable saying ignore anyone suggesting otherwise. The stated build quality complaints are absurd to me.
R3(non meta)is a bit clinical sounding to be my 1st personal pick. They sound to me like superb SPEAKERS and they do have a hint of pleasant richness, low distortion above 60hrz, and 'feel' very accurate yet are just not quite exactly able to get my toes tapping and cause me to be unable to stop listening past bedtime. Oh well, I do like it alot just not love it alot.
Perhaps the new Meta version will be different enough that something changes for me.

If you have the C-3 from your avatar, that speaker is one I sorta liked but I just didn't love. It had a 'tiny' quality to me. In any case the R3 is a much more robust unit with vastly more sophisticated drivers. Will it be better to you is another ?.

By the way OP, it was mention so just to be clear, with subs and high passed the R3 can handle really good output levels.
I'd pick 70-100hrz as the crossover region high passing those R3's L4 and SPL ability will be really, really nice.

You also mention direct sales and Buchart. That is just a side effect of small company logistics. No small company can compare with KEF, Harman and other very large companies on cost ratios. It is not even going to be close. KEF outsells Buchart 500-1 or more. JBL/Harman who knows, just looking at one single Harman speaker. I think they sold 5,000+ JBL studio 530's in the USA alone over the past 4years. The prices Harman,KEF ECT pay for production of their products at their scale and volume would likely blow your mind. Especially Harman. I bet they pay $5-10 in costs for a driver that would cost $120 at a DIY store.
Economy of scale.
These large guys sell tens of thousands of speakers and products. The scale is just massive in some cases.

I suspect pound for pound the R3 is objectively a better value vs the Buchart despite the layers of business. Though I always advocate for giving the little guy a shot. Plus I think the Buchart is a very interesting speaker, though I have never heard one if them.