• 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!

Erin's review -- KEF Q11 Meta

This makes me wonder if KEF may at some point tweak this speaker a bit, now that this is becoming more widely known.

Yeah, don't know if they will bother with that. Was the shadow flare on R3 ever fixed?
 
Last edited:
I also had asked myself the same exact questions and even made an EQ for flat LW based on the KEF paper data but didn't like it on my Q7. Guess the truth is somewhere in between that we hear both direct sound and reflected sound power (of course which one more depending on the listening distance, directivity and reverberation) so a good compromise of both might be the way to go.
Yep, distance is quite important. Plus room interaction depends on the interior. Again, I think that flat on-axis maybe the most robust rule. An informed user is going to adjust to personal preference today, dropping elder wisdom with a happy smile.
 
Don't understand why they did that? Q3 and Concerto don't have a tilt to that degree...might be a problem if doing surround with Q meta range.
The Concerto which is also a 3-way and has the same Uni-Q does, it significantly differs only in the woofer region,
newplot (11).png

only the Q3 doesn't as it has a large 2-way Uni-Q with different radiation.
 
The Concerto which is also a 3-way and has the same Uni-Q does, it significantly differs only in the woofer region,
View attachment 420935
only the Q3 doesn't as it has a large 2-way Uni-Q with different radiation.
Maybe cabinet shape and size is playing a part? Also they may have required more tweeter output in the smaller models to hit a sensitivity goal.
 
The Concerto which is also a 3-way and has the same Uni-Q does, it significantly differs only in the woofer region,
View attachment 420935
only the Q3 doesn't as it has a large 2-way Uni-Q with different radiation.

Must have misunderstood him in the video then. Around 16 min in, he compares Q11 and Q Concerto.
 
Well, I think KEF knows that the average audio enthusiast(non ASR type) who walks into an audio store will pick the brighter R Meta sound over that of the "softer" Q Meta series. Perhaps that is part of their calculus to entice people to their higher series.
By the same reasoning they would go straight to a Genelec type of tilt but they don't.
I think KEF tried to make a speaker that works as close to front walls as possible.
Both low and high.
 
Been waiting for this one. I think I'm more interested in the Q7 Meta, which I hope is similarly good.

I must say I'm sad for not seeing a comparative test between KEF Reference 1 (old version) and KEF R3 Meta. I've said this many times. I'm starting to think this is being deliberately avoided.

Then again, I must add it's maybe just me not being able to find such a test no matter how hard I looked. Maybe in the mean time someone did it.
 
Last edited:
It’s really interesting to see a company so on top of their engineering that they are now just pouring playing around with estimated in-room frequency response tilt angles.

To me it looks like the Q series have a deliberately steeper tilt to appeal to those looking for a more natural sound as a nice alternative to the typical “hifi” bright sound they’ll likely hear from the usual showroom suspects (Bowers, Dali, PMC,a Klipsch). At the same time, as someone above pointed out, it differentiates the range from the R Series which have a sound to at that a salesperson can tell a client is higher resolution.

EDIT for typos.
 
I must say I'm sad for not seeing a comparative test between KEF Reference 1 (old version) and KEF R3 Meta. I've said this many times. I'm starting to think this is being deliberately avoided.
;)
Then again, I must add it's maybe just me not being able to find such a test no matter how hard I looked. Maybe in the mean time someone did it.
No news ;)
It's always been like this... After a certain amount of money, the added quality, is mostly minor, compared to the way higher price.
The more expensive KEF models do tend to have less distortion and smoother FR.
 
By the way the current German Stereoplay-Audio issue (they are one magazine since a year) shows measurements of the new ELAC Debut 3.0 DB63 and it shows a similar on-axis/LW slope of around -5 dB from 100 to 20000 Hz despite it also having a decent sized waveguide.
 
No news ;)
It's always been like this... After a certain amount of money, the added quality, is mostly minor, compared to the way higher price.
The more expensive KEF models do tend to have less distortion and smoother FR.
But at least with the Q11 distortion and smoothness are quite safely on the sunny side of „good enough“. Only the build, presumably, is less overengineered.

In the old days KEF was known for a warm-ish profile, for which the term „british sound“ was coined. It became part of hifi lingo.
 
Well, it's good but it really needs subwoofers. And an amp. And a streamer.
Ok maybe it's better to find some LS60's on bargain in the end.
 
Well, it's good but it really needs subwoofers. And an amp. And a streamer.
Ok maybe it's better to find some LS60's on bargain in the end.
While I agree the LS60 is a great total solution I don't agree that it necessarily needs a sub as its low shelf bass tuning goes deeper than the anechoic measurements may make someone think it does and a flat anechoic bass tuning rather brings too much bass in typical living spaces and placements and needs EQ to be pulled down.
Also the LS60 loses its deep bass advantages already at not very high levels so they are not directly comparable in my opinion.

1736854277291.png

1736854128142.png
 
In the old days KEF was known for a warm-ish profile, for which the term „british sound“ was coined. It became part of hifi lingo.
I think my dad would like them. He still has original Chorales from 1978!
 
No news ;)
It's always been like this... After a certain amount of money, the added quality, is mostly minor, compared to the way higher price.
The more expensive KEF models do tend to have less distortion and smoother FR.
Yeah, but I'm suspicious about it. I think Original ref 1 wouldn't do all that good against the improved R3. I think in that particular case, the price doesn't justify the actual difference.
 
But at least with the Q11 distortion and smoothness are quite safely on the sunny side of „good enough“. Only the build, presumably, is less overengineered.

In the old days KEF was known for a warm-ish profile, for which the term „british sound“ was coined. It became part of hifi lingo.
You can think of toe-in with especially KEF speakers, as a kind of upper tone-control, simply because they have such smooth and even power response.
I have DIY speakers built like the KEF R900. They play straight ahead. With the Q series - it could be argued that a bit of toe-in would be preferable.
Beyond that - EQ is your friend - especially if you respect the nice measurements that Erin did - above your room modes. And then EQ for your room below your Schroeder freq.
 
Yeah, but I'm suspicious about it. I think Original ref 1 wouldn't do all that good against the improved R3. I think in that particular case, the price doesn't justify the actual difference.
Unles, they deliver exactly what you like. I personally like the kind of narrow dispersion of KEF speaker, and think that "normal" speaker "spread" to much. It's a mix of personal taste, your room, your music and the speaker you chose. KEF just made several nice speaker in several price ranges.
Pick and chose your favorite :D
 
Unles, they deliver exactly what you like. I personally like the kind of narrow dispersion of KEF speaker, and think that "normal" speaker "spread" to much. It's a mix of personal taste, your room, your music and the speaker you chose. KEF just made several nice speaker in several price ranges.
Pick and chose your favorite :D
No, no. In my comment both are KEF. And both are 3 way. And both have the UniQ and so on. It's just that when you further advance the entire range, what happens is that lower tier speakers sometimes catch up with the upper tier speakers from yesteryears.

This is my guess why this particular comparison is hardly anywhere to be found.
 
Back
Top Bottom