Buying Advice - KEF R11 Meta vs. Perlisten R5t vs. Focal Aria Evo X No. 4

[Nandaki]

Hi all,

Long time lurker, first time poster, finally creating an account to post this question.

I am deciding between three floor standing speakers (KEF R11 Meta vs. Perlisten R5t vs. Focal Aria Evo X No. 4), and their associated center channel speaker, to replace my current B&W 603s in my home theatre room. The B&Ws I bought in 2018 when I lived in an apartment, but want to upgrade now that I have a dedicated room.

• My home theatre setup is a 7.2.4 channel setup in a 8'11"x17'2"x16'9" (HxWxD) room. Has floating shelves on the side walls, with Lego models & hanging football scarves, carpeted floor, and a cabinet/bar on the back wall. The ceiling is untreated.
• The single row seat is 8'10" from the TV, which is flat on the wall.
• The two surrounds are also B&W 607s (which I am not replacing right away), and the remaining 6 (4 in ceiling + 2 rear wall) are 8" Artison ARCHT-8-SSTT speakers that came with the house.
• My two subwoofers are SVS SB2000 Pros.
• My processor is the Marantz AV20, powered by an Anthem 5 channel amplifier and an Outlaw 7 channel amplifier. I am also running Dirac ART as room correction.
• My primary use is for video games via a gaming pc (50%), and movies or high production TV shows (50%). No music is listened to in this room.

My predicament is that the Perlisten R5t does not have any objective reviews (that I could find online), and the KEF and Focals were recommended by the installer that I have worked with in the past. I do not plan on replacing whichever speakers I buy at least for the next 10+ years. The Perlistens are at the top of my budget consideration.

Looking for feedback, or other speaker suggestions to consider.

Thanks!

 

[l_lama]

What would you like to archive with loudspeakers upgrade?
Your front speakers are probably loud enough for the room already and not that much fidelity is required for the content you are interested in.
I would go with Focal just for their cabinet proportions and some admiration of larger woofers.

 

[voodooless]

The Focals seems to have similar issues with high frequencies as the no 2. Measured by Erin:

Measurements for speaker Focal Aria Evo X No.2

www.spinorama.org

That would leave the KEF and Perlisten both are excellent speakers if you can trust the data from Perlisten, which I think you mostly can. I’m pretty sure the KEFs will go slightly louder given that they have twice the amount of woofers even if they both spec 113 dB. Which one will work best in your room is very hard to judge.

 

[delta76]

Used to own focal (previous line aria 948). Don't think Evo X is up against R11 meta well. If you like the look and/or the brand yes, but objective performance is considerably worse

 

[Nandaki]

What would you like to archive with loudspeakers upgrade?
Your front speakers are probably loud enough for the room already and not that much fidelity is required for the content you are interested in.
I would go with Focal just for their cabinet proportions and some admiration of larger woofers.

Good question - I want avoid upgrading for the sake of upgrading. But primarily looking for quality/fidelity improvements over volume gains. The B&W 603s are good speakers, but their measurements aren't A+ (from Audioholics - https://www.audioholics.com/tower-speaker-reviews/b-w-603)

Modern single player video games tend to have incredibly deep audio with a lot of unique elements + multiple spoken voices, and in the case of movies (using F1 on AppleTV as an example) need to be able to hear the vocals whilst music and ancillary sounds are playing (engine, tires etc.).

Hope that helps answer your question.

 

[kyuu]

If you have the budget for Perlisten speakers, they are pretty faultless from what I can see and have heard. Erin's review of the S4B is the only proper independent review of a Perlisten that I'm aware of. It's really very expensive for what it is, but the distortion/compression is really impressive for a bookshelf, directivity looks great, and the response is pretty flat. That peaking around 10kHz seems to be deliberate to counteract a bit of narrowing in the directivity as you can see that it maintains a good estimated in-room response. The bookshelf is pretty bass-shy, but otherwise hard to find fault.

I think the KEF setup will get you what you are looking for (a proper response instead of that typical V-shaped B&W response) for a lot less, though.

 

[quattro98]

Get the KEF and be done. The Perlisten are great too, but more expensive and with worse off-axis response if that matters (the KEF will have more even sound in multiple seating positions, while standing, or when sitting on the floor). Avoid the Focal.

 

[ban25]

James Larson of Audioholics has a review with measurements of the larger R7T. It should at least be a data-point:

Perlisten R7t Floor-Standing Loudspeaker Review

The R7t tower speaker is Perlisten's flagship for their value-oriented Reference line. They are still $10k/pair, but what if they offer higher performance than any other $10k speaker set?

www.audioholics.com

Having owned the R11s, I don't think I would consider them a 10+ year investment, but that's just me. The Perlistens would appeal more to me, but I also don't really have experience with them.

 

[-Matt-]

I went from B&W (CDM7NT, with Nautilus tweeters) to Kef R7 (non-Meta). The response of the Kef's is obviously much smoother but perhaps due to the listening distance (about 4m) I find the high frequencies are possibly a bit low.

Likely this is after many years of becoming used to B&W's with a bit of extra sparkle. However, the response does fall below Audyssey's default high frequency roll off and requires boost to match the target; if you allow too much of that boost it can become a bit harsh and sibalient. (To be fair, this was also the case for the B&Ws, even without high frequency boost).

I have to say that, although they are fine (and probably better quality than the Focal Aria's) I found that the cabinet construction of the Kef R series was a bit of a disappointment compared to the B&Ws. Whilst the B&Ws had nice furniture grade real wood venir, the Kef Rs seem to have a thin plastic wrap and the boxes have sharp corners. I can well imagine that if they had a harder life they could look pretty trashed after a few years. (However, the Kef's are pretty weighty, which inspires confidence that internally they should be pretty solid).

The Perlisten's are in a significantly different price bracket, but it looks as though higher quality materials are deployed. The design of the Perlistens seems very similar to that of the Kef R series, I'd expect performance to be similar too. In fact to me the design looks so similar that they could almost be a higher spec model from the same manufacturer. Does anyone know if Perlisten and Kef are actually sister brands under the same overall ownership?!

I've not checked to see how the prices compare between Perlisten R series and Kef Reference series. To me that seems like a fairer comparison than to the Kef R series.

Edit: I retract my comments on the Perlisten design being very similar to the Kef one. I was thinking of the Perlisten S Series and even then there are significant differences such as the non coaxial mid and tweeter and the rounded front baffle etc.

Overall, I think the Kefs give the best performance for the lowest price (which is why I went for them). If you are in the US you may find that Revel is better value.

 

[Jiraya369]

Thing about Perlisten is they use exotic materials and design so their price is not just for the performance. Same can be said about KEF but it's doubly true for Perlisten.

The R11 Meta is perfect in both looks and performance. That's the problem you'll find, so good that it's hard to complain. But I wonder how much of an upgrade it'll be from your B&W, especially if you're one to value soundstage width over imaging precision. If you want width, Revel marries wide soundstage with exceptional performance the best. But hardly anyone can beat KEF, they can only be matched. By Genelec, Neumann, some JBLs and now Ascilab. You can see the Revel goes up and down, but the KEF is just nearly constant 2-3k onwards, you can draw a perfect straight line!

Maybe measure the B&W in your room with a UMIK-1 and send it here before pulling the trigger on the R11 Meta.

 

[Jiraya369]

I don't think I would consider them a 10+ year investment,

but why?

 

[Nandaki]

Thing about Perlisten is they use exotic materials and design so their price is not just for the performance. Same can be said about KEF but it's doubly true for Perlisten.

The R11 Meta is perfect in both looks and performance. That's the problem you'll find, so good that it's hard to complain. But I wonder how much of an upgrade it'll be from your B&W, especially if you're one to value soundstage width over imaging precision. If you want width, Revel marries wide soundstage with exceptional performance the best. But hardly anyone can beat KEF, they can only be matched. By Genelec, Neumann, some JBLs and now Ascilab. You can see the Revel goes up and down, but the KEF is just nearly constant 2-3k onwards, you can draw a perfect straight line!

View attachment 502360
View attachment 502361

Maybe measure the B&W in your room with a UMIK-1 and send it here before pulling the trigger on the R11 Meta.

I do have UMIK-1, which I had used for the Dirac ART calibration. But I do not know how to generate the"Horizontal Beamwidth" charts above - I am assuming with REW? I can google and give it a shot this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion to do so.

 

[Nandaki]

I went from B&W (CDM7NT, with Nautilus tweeters) to Kef R7 (non-Meta). The response of the Kef's is obviously much smoother but perhaps due to the listening distance (about 4m) I find the high frequencies are possibly a bit low.

Likely this is after many years of becoming used to B&W's with a bit of extra sparkle. However, the response does fall below Audyssey's default high frequency roll off and requires boost to match the target; if you allow too much of that boost it can become a bit harsh and sibalient. (To be fair, this was also the case for the B&Ws, even without high frequency boost).

I have to say that, although they are fine (and probably better quality than the Focal Aria's) I found that the cabinet construction of the Kef R series was a bit of a disappointment compared to the B&Ws. Whilst the B&Ws had nice furniture grade real wood venir, the Kef Rs seem to have a thin plastic wrap and the boxes have sharp corners. I can well imagine that if they had a harder life they could look pretty trashed after a few years. (However, the Kef's are pretty weighty, which inspires confidence that internally they should be pretty solid).

The Perlisten's are in a significantly different price bracket, but it looks as though higher quality materials are deployed. The design of the Perlistens seems very similar to that of the Kef R series, I'd expect performance to be similar too. In fact to me the design looks so similar that they could almost be a higher spec model from the same manufacturer. Does anyone know if Perlisten and Kef are actually sister brands under the same overall ownership?!

I've not checked to see how the prices compare between Perlisten R series and Kef Reference series. To me that seems like a fairer comparison than to the Kef R series.

Edit: I retract my comments on the Perlisten design being very similar to the Kef one. I was thinking of the Perlisten S Series and even then there are significant differences such as the non coaxial mid and tweeter and the rounded front baffle etc.

Overall, I think the Kefs give the best performance for the lowest price (which is why I went for them). If you are in the US you may find that Revel is better value.

The below table shows the speakers that I was originally comparing and the associated USD prices - the Revels were very expensive even when they were on sale (Crutchfield). Ignore the Arendal, since I decided against doing monitors for the from LR.

 

[quattro98]

I do have UMIK-1, which I had used for the Dirac ART calibration. But I do not know how to generate the"Horizontal Beamwidth" charts above - I am assuming with REW? I can google and give it a shot this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion to do so.

The plots are from the review of the R11.

KEF R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the KEF R11 Meta floorstanding speaker. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $3250 each. The R11 Meta is gorgeous looking with high gloss finish and cabinet that has been shrunk as much as possible to basically hug the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Nandaki]

The plots are from the review of the R11.

KEF R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the KEF R11 Meta floorstanding speaker. It was sent to me by the company and costs US $3250 each. The R11 Meta is gorgeous looking with high gloss finish and cabinet that has been shrunk as much as possible to basically hug the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Copy - this was more in regards to this comment by Jiraya369 -

Maybe measure the B&W in your room with a UMIK-1 and send it here before pulling the trigger on the R11 Meta.

So I was clarifying what measurements we were talking about - in regards to the B&W 603s

 

[Jiraya369]

I do have UMIK-1, which I had used for the Dirac ART calibration. But I do not know how to generate the"Horizontal Beamwidth" charts above - I am assuming with REW? I can google and give it a shot this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion to do so.

i was just talking about sending a screenshot of the response of your B&W before pulling the trigger.

 

[Nandaki]

i was just talking about sending a screenshot of the response of your B&W before pulling the trigger.

That I can do - see below the L/R response captured by Dirac across 13 measurements and I also added the center channel since that is part of the package.

 

[Jiraya369]

That I can do - see below the L/R response captured by Dirac across 13 measurements and I also added the center channel since that is part of the package.

View attachment 502521

View attachment 502522

L/R doesnt look too bad, shouldnt it be sloping down?

In terms of tonality ig since we cant comment on the off axis performance, I'll say for the most part you'll hear a big improvement as KEF's off-axis is nearly unmatched. Be warned though, I believe the soundstage will be significantly narrow but due to KEF's controlled directivity, you can toe the speakers out 10-20 degrees without losing ANY of the imaging depth/precision and adding some soundstage width. I do that with my Ascilab C6B, Erin recommends toeing out coaxials anyways, and so does KEF i think, they all look far smoother when toed out. Head on, coaxials look a lot worse i think.

 

[Nandaki]

L/R doesnt look too bad, shouldnt it be sloping down?

In terms of tonality ig since we cant comment on the off axis performance, I'll say for the most part you'll hear a big improvement as KEF's off-axis is nearly unmatched. Be warned though, I believe the soundstage will be significantly narrow but due to KEF's controlled directivity, you can toe the speakers out 10-20 degrees without losing ANY of the imaging depth/precision and adding some soundstage width. I do that with my Ascilab C6B, Erin recommends toeing out coaxials anyways, and so does KEF i think, they all look far smoother when toed out. Head on, coaxials look a lot worse i think.

When I put in the target curve, it does create a downward slope for the speakers. But the measured response has shown this non-sloping trend across the three times I have run it. This seems to track with the measurements that Audioholics showed in their review.

I ended up using the Storm Audio Dirac curve as the target curve - and thank you for the feedback and suggestions!