KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF R3 Meta. Which one?

[Rev]

Hello all,

Long time lurker of this awesome forum. First post.

Current setup:
KEF LSX II
KC62
Room size: 14.19m2

originally I had my current setup as a desktop NF and recently moved them to a cabinet in the same room. Love the clarity and soundstage the LSX provide but I’m looking to upgrade to fill the room more.

My options are:
KEF LS50 Meta or R3 Meta +
KEF KC62
Marantz M1 + Roon
Van Den Hul Clearwater Speaker wire

I intend to use this setup purely for music only with moderate to occasional high volume. My concerns are the R3 Metas may require bigger room space to really get the most out of them whereas the LS50s may suit the room more. LFE in both cases should be covered well with the KC62. Hoping someone may have experiences with both systems or lead me in the right direction.

Many thanks!

 

[Ellebob]

We install all of them. I like the R3 Meta better than the LS50 Meta. It also has less distortion when playing louder.

 

[steve59]

The local KEF dealer near me prefers the R3 for the bass driver, makes sense.

 

[diablo]

I bought a pair of LS50 Metas shortly after Amir reviewed them. Ever since I've wished I got the R3s instead. Not actually using the LS50s at the moment.

 

[steve59]

I think the way the LS50's were hyped by the media many of us expected.. well, world beaters out of a single 5.25" coax driver while in reality we all have our own idea of what a world beater is and those little LS50's never had a chance to live up to everybody's expectations.

 

[aarons915]

I prefer the LS50 high passed around 120Hz with subs to the R3 but if you're not using subs the R3 is a no brainer.

 

[meracus]

Had both sold both , the 50 had what appeared to me a More 3D sound but the r3 had less distortion at higher volume and a deeper bass
I would do a 60 for your volume and if you listen fairly nearfield … such a complete speaker and stunning image a super bass
It’s more money granted , but to me it was a step above if your room is small

 

[Mike_Trueman]

I prefer the LS50 high passed around 120Hz with subs to the R3 but if you're not using subs the R3 is a no brainer.

Same here.
His small room would be enough with the LS50 Meta + the KEF KC62. Without the subwoofer i would choose the R3 Meta's

 

[DSJR]

Kind of proves the point I feel, that speakers still need to be auditioned and preferably with a sale or return basis, in the listeners' own room on different music if at all possible.

 

[tw 2022]

Kind of proves the point I feel, that speakers still need to be auditioned and preferably with a sale or return basis, in the listeners' own room on different music if at all possible.

Yeah, measurements are great , but listening in your own environment with no pressure to buy and being able to do whatever type a/b testing you can is far more reliable than any showroom testing and knowing the numbers ...it's about what works for the buyer....

 

[Rev]

Same here.
His small room would be enough with the LS50 Meta + the KEF KC62. Without the subwoofer i would choose the R3 Meta's

If you add a subwoofer to the r3 metas is that overkill for the room? Or it’s a matter of adjusting measurements to the room?

 

[Mike_Trueman]

Well since you have a high pass crossover amp and if you plug the R3 Meta's you could try it.

 

[CJH]

I have both and here is my take:
LS50m has good frequency balance with no EQ and very good frequency balance with EQ.
R3m has very good frequency balance with no EQ and very, very good frequency balance with EQ.
For me it was worth getting a used pair of R3m after having the LS50m for a couple years.
CJH

 

[Puddingbuks]

Drop the amp and buy the LS60.

 

[Heinrich]

I have both and here is my take:
LS50m has good frequency balance with no EQ and very good frequency balance with EQ.
R3m has very good frequency balance with no EQ and very, very good frequency balance with EQ.
For me it was worth getting a used pair of R3m after having the LS50m for a couple years.
CJH

With so many comments, the resell value of the R3s would possibly be better. You won't try, though. With the LS50 I'm not so sure. I confrim, that the difference between the two is stunning.

 

[vsch]

To play the devil's advocate: Given the size of the room and given that you have a sub, would any of these actually be a meaningful upgrade over LSX II? If you use eq and do not listen at SPL levels where distortion becomes a problem, they might all sound rather similar. Or in other words, what are you missing that you hope to achieve with such an upgrade?

 

[Good Vibes]

I owned both at the same time and I 100% preferred the LS50’s. In my experience, the LS50’s had a wider soundstage and an impressive, crystal clear, holographic imaging which the R3’s did not. After a few months of direct A/B testing it was an easy decision for me, I sold the R3’s and bought a subwoofer. I was quite disappointed with the R3’s, they looked good but just didn’t do it for me.

My room was 15 x 13ft room.

 

[Heinrich]

To play the devil's advocate: Given the size of the room and given that you have a sub, would any of these actually be a meaningful upgrade over LSX II? If you use eq and do not listen at SPL levels where distortion becomes a problem, they might all sound rather similar. Or in other words, what are you missing that you hope to achieve with such an upgrade?

A bit more generally speaking, the LSX has a bass problem, as is expected. The LS50 likewise, yet not that pronounced.
For one the output drops rather quickly towards the lower register, and additionally the distortion raises extremely fast. To get rid of the distortion components needs a high and also steep xover, say 24dB/oct at 120..150 Hz. Acoustically the combo with the falling edge of the speaker would yield 48dB/oct effectively.

To bring either to the performance level of the comparably priced R3 would ask for an even higher cut-off. I remember quite a rasp, pressed tone from the LS50s, some honky, matt bass from other minis I had. Such confinement of a flow always annoyed me, let alone missing „info“, articulation …

When it comes to room size, isn‘t it listening distance, that determines the desired output capability more?

 

[dasherzx]

Have the r3 meta. Bought it used at half price in place of the kh120 that moved to the home theatre. No room correction above 400hz. Frankly speaking kinda disappointed with it at low volumes. Otherwise it’s okay…

 

[vsch]

A bit more generally speaking, the LSX has a bass problem, as is expected. The LS50 likewise, yet not that pronounced.
For one the output drops rather quickly towards the lower register, and additionally the distortion raises extremely fast. To get rid of the distortion components needs a high and also steep xover, say 24dB/oct at 120..150 Hz. Acoustically the combo with the falling edge of the speaker would yield 48dB/oct effectively.

To bring either to the performance level of the comparably priced R3 would ask for an even higher cut-off. I remember quite a rasp, pressed tone from the LS50s, some honky, matt bass from other minis I had. Such confinement of a flow always annoyed me, let alone missing „info“, articulation …

When it comes to room size, isn‘t it listening distance, that determines the desired output capability more?

You're right, should be listening distance rather than room size -- at least for mid to high frequencies.