KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF R3

[muad]

It still surprises me how people can get to listen night and day differences between two speakers that are more similar than different as is the case for R3 and LS50 Meta.

A proper comparison would be to put a high pass filter to R3 to limit its low frequency extension to the point being similar to LS50. After that, all those nigh and day differences should be laughable pure bias.

Both speakers benefits from the same good directivity thanks to the concentric-coaxial driver, in fact both speakers share THE SAME driver with the tiny exception LS50 having a metamaterial back plate and R3 a rear vented tweeter with damped cavity.

Both should be more similar than different as for tonal balance with mild character difference at most. I should congratulate whoever at KEF took the marketing decision to put "metamaterial" all over the place, it has definitely helped create a herd mentality.

The meta material is marketing BS. The metas to me are an ls50 with a the crossover that shoudl have been there in the first place, and they got it right. The off axis performance remains incredible smooth throughout, whereas the R3 show peaking in the far off axis in both Erin's and amir's data. That and the shadow flair dip are likely why I didn't like the sound. Oddly not engaging with a bit of shrillness in certain recordings. I find the metas smoother and more consistent between songs.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

The meta material is marketing BS. The metas to me are an ls50 with a the crossover that shoudl have been there in the first place, and they got it right. The off axis performance remains incredible smooth throughout, whereas the R3 show peaking in the far off axis in both Erin's and amir's data. That and the shadow flair dip are likely why I didn't like the sound. Oddly not engaging with a bit of shrillness in certain recordings. I find the metas smoother and more consistent between songs.

If you want to hear the FR without any harshness or weird thing, with R series you need to say away of on-axis.
The good sound come at 10-20°~.
Jack made a comment here explaining why listen to them at least at 10°

 

[alitomr1979]

The meta material is marketing BS. The metas to me are an ls50 with a the crossover that shoudl have been there in the first place, and they got it right. The off axis performance remains incredible smooth throughout, whereas the R3 show peaking in the far off axis in both Erin's and amir's data. That and the shadow flair dip are likely why I didn't like the sound. Oddly not engaging with a bit of shrillness in certain recordings. I find the metas smoother and more consistent between songs.

I tested them side by side and I doubt the differences come only from the crossover setting. The Metas are different speakers.

I could agree that maybe for marketing purposes they are reducing all they did to their meta material, which makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective. Not only makes sense, that’s common practice in marketing all over the world, especially in tech. Tv makers reducing all the engineering put into some tech to what is easily marketable like OLED, QLED, 4K, pixels, etc.

That could be in place here.

 

[muad]

Things like this are the room

Thats the same thing you said to me... So anyone that feels something is off, must be their room? Have you had the metas and R3 in your home?

 

[muad]

I tested them side by side and I doubt the differences come only from the crossover setting. The Metas are different speakers.

I could agree that maybe for marketing purposes they are reducing all they did to their meta material, which makes a lot of sense from a marketing perspective. Not only makes sense, that’s common practice in marketing all over the world, especially in tech. Tv makers reducing all the engineering put into some tech to what is easily marketable like OLED, QLED, 4K, pixels, etc.

That could be in place here.

There's very in depth measurements over on diyaudio that show the woofer and tweeter peak right before the crossover region, resulting in the elevated response through the presence region. So you may be right in that they were able to tame the resonances with driver redesign.

Some of.the folks at diyaudio were able.to.fix the crossover through that region to good effect

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Thats the same thing you said to me... So anyone that feels something is off, must be their room? Have you had the metas and R3 in your home?

The room has been always the problem, what is the surprise to you?
There is cardiod speaker(s) for a reason.

I have a better thing than had the meta or the R3 in my home, i have a headphone with FR correction. I need to mention that headphones does not suffer any problem with the room ?

 

[Crosstalk]

Thats the same thing you said to me... So anyone that feels something is off, must be their room? Have you had the metas and R3 in your home?

This question was never answered…

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The room has been always the problem, what is the surprise to you?
There is cardiod speaker(s) for a reason.

I have a better thing than had the meta or the R3 in my home, i have a headphone with FR correction. I need to mention that headphones does not suffer any problem with the room ?

Yeah, but unless you have something like a Smyth A16 Realiser, the sound is all inside the head, and the head is the most problematic room of all.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Yeah, but unless you have something like a Smyth A16 Realiser, the sound is all inside the head, and the head is the most problematic room of all.

Emm, no.

 

[alitomr1979]

How loud can the KEF LS50 Meta play with out distortion if they are crossed over at 100Hz with a sub?

Between all the discussion and personal preferences OP´s intention got kind of lost: For movies, LCR combo, Which speaker is better, LS50 Meta or R3?

Revising the thread I understand that people with the most information and actual experience with both speakers tend to the R3 for this use case, and that is my case, because of the following:

• LS50 has a lackluster movie performance as a center, as other have said. I have one practically brand new white unit in storage, that I bought for that use, and much prefer the Q600c to it. It is evident to me, from side to side comparissons that some of the issues that made the LS50 lackluster as a center were partially fixed (attended, at least): improved dynamics, better performance at loud volumes. This is my subjective opinion, and dont really know if the objective measures back this up.
• LS50 with a sub is not an R3. And no, R3 is not a bigger LS50 meta. LS50 ad LS50 Metas are uncapable of R3 level output, even with a sub or two.
• Most will agree that for movies and specially for the center channel, it is considerably more important output and dynamics than a bit more clarity, especially when you are talking about R3/LS50 level clarity. Those who say they love the LS50 as a center tend to be those who dont compare it to a similarly priced center speaker, because it is an LS50, an amazing speaker overall, but what the LS50 lack when operating as a center is crucial for overall enjoyment of movies. Again important to mention that this is all subjective, and the most striking evidence of how subjective is all this, is that I actually know people who set their receivers/processors to limit dynamic range because "they dont like when the movies get loud". Shocking to me, but it is actually just another instance of how taste and personal preference vary drastically between individuals. If you are among those people who limit dynamic range because you dont like when movies get loud (in an audiophiles forum!!???), then by all means, get the Metas, because the R3 probably have little for you.

@Descartes I would like to know what was your decision. Has the discussion been helpful to decide?

 

[buz]

Not descartes but used to have 4 OG LS50 plus a (now broken) sub in a small room. Long story short, got 4 R3 and an R2c but due to an impending move, only use two R3 with phantom center right now.

R3 without sub is a lot more capable than an LS50 but does not quite replace the sub, I think. I also prefer the all black look to the black and copper of the LS50

 

[alitomr1979]

Not descartes but used to have 4 OG LS50 plus a (now broken) sub in a small room. Long story short, got 4 R3 and an R2c but due to an impending move, only use two R3 with phantom center right now.

R3 without sub is a lot more capable than an LS50 but does not quite replace the sub, I think.

My opinion is that anyone saying a sub is not required hasnt heard their speakers with one or two well integrated subwoofers, or is in the "I dont like when movies get loud” camp or some other variation.

After integrating a Topping pre90 preamplifier it became extremely easy for me to test my R3 with and without subs because I get to turn off my subs with one click (output to XLR+RCA, XLR, RCA). When you release the speakers of their low end duties and allow two subwoofers to take over, the whole sound is absolutely different. Highs, mids and lows change dramatically, it doesnt really matter if the output level is low or high.

So, no, an R3, or mostly any other speaker that doesnt go as low as 20-30hz, doesnt substitute a subwoofer imho. Even those that go as low as 20hz can benefit greatly from a subwoofer because as I think I said in this same thread, the crucial variable that doesnt get too much attention is how distortion increases dramatically in most speakers from certain range. They market their products as being capable of reaching certain low frequency, but they dont mention that they get there with great distortion when compared to the levels achieved from say 100hz and up.

 

[BoredErica]

Yeah, you need a sub either way lol. Part of audible frequency response is straight up missing without it so how the heck is this hifi? The only comparison I care about is Meta EQed + sub vs R3 EQed + sub. Of course if you're in some extreme space limited situation that's an exception but Meta usually wins by default there simply by being smaller (or if desk space/etc doesn't matter but sub space does I guess R3 just wins there)

 

[tecnogadget]

alitomr1979 I've used R3's for more than a year without subwoofer and its bass capabilities are nothing short of impressive. It goes down to 30Hz with absolute authority, and for some rooms it can still give you usable output down to 20Hz (not flat obviously). In fact, sporting so much low end extension easily became detrimental (meaning it really activated my room 50Hz mode) so I had to use the half bungs into the ports and some manual AVR eq for proper integration.

To me, reference sound reproduction involves getting linearly down to 20Hz at low distortion and no bass ringing or go home, so I'm currently using them with SVS-1000 Pro and PEQ filters after measurements. Of course this is much better than no sub, and the difference is clearly palpable, but still I'm impressed by all the time I did live without the sub and enjoyed the R3's anyway.

 

[Descartes]

Between all the discussion and personal preferences OP´s intention got kind of lost: For movies, LCR combo, Which speaker is better, LS50 Meta or R3?

Revising the thread I understand that people with the most information and actual experience with both speakers tend to the R3 for this use case, and that is my case, because of the following:

• LS50 has a lackluster movie performance as a center, as other have said. I have one practically brand new white unit in storage, that I bought for that use, and much prefer the Q600c to it. It is evident to me, from side to side comparissons that some of the issues that made the LS50 lackluster as a center were partially fixed (attended, at least): improved dynamics, better performance at loud volumes. This is my subjective opinion, and dont really know if the objective measures back this up.
• LS50 with a sub is not an R3. And no, R3 is not a bigger LS50 meta. LS50 ad LS50 Metas are uncapable of R3 level output, even with a sub or two.
• Most will agree that for movies and specially for the center channel, it is considerably more important output and dynamics than a bit more clarity, especially when you are talking about R3/LS50 level clarity. Those who say they love the LS50 as a center tend to be those who dont compare it to a similarly priced center speaker, because it is an LS50, an amazing speaker overall, but what the LS50 lack when operating as a center is crucial for overall enjoyment of movies. Again important to mention that this is all subjective, and the most striking evidence of how subjective is all this, is that I actually know people who set their receivers/processors to limit dynamic range because "they dont like when the movies get loud". Shocking to me, but it is actually just another instance of how taste and personal preference vary drastically between individuals. If you are among those people who limit dynamic range because you dont like when movies get loud (in an audiophiles forum!!???), then by all means, get the Metas, because the R3 probably have little for you.

@Descartes I would like to know what was your decision. Has the discussion been helpful to decide?

Somewhat, I just wish I could find a dealer to demo both speakers and let my ears decide

 

[alitomr1979]

Somewhat, I just wish I could find a dealer to demo both speakers and let my ears decide

Yeah, that’s what you should do. This is ideal. I didn’t have the chance to test both at the same time, and now I would like to do it. But again, as LCR for a movies system, I think the Metas don’t stand a chance against the R3s.

Good luck!

 

[Descartes]

Yeah, that’s what you should do. This is ideal. I didn’t have the chance to test both at the same time, and now I would like to do it. But again, as LCR for a movies system, I think the Metas don’t stand a chance against the R3s.

Good luck!

Even if they are crossed over 100Hz?

 

[alitomr1979]

Even if they are crossed over 100Hz?

No. Not even crossed at 100hz. I tested them extensively crossed at 100hz and 120hz, and the output is not there.

THIS IS ESPECIALLY true for its duties as a center. The LS50 just feels light, and lacks the slam and presence of a bigger speaker there.

 

[gmoney]

I had previously purchased the R3 to compare with Meta and ended up keeping the R3 and recommended them to a friend who came by and listened to mine and fell in love.

He just bought a set and ended up returning them because of what we both consider pretty crappy build quality. The KEF logo on the front of one of the speakers was crooked, the bass drivers weren't centered in their housings and the "flares" or circular trim pieces that surround both drivers were all over the place between speakers in terms of depth/height. Lastly where the rubber surround meets the cone of the mid range driver is really messy on both (looks like torn rubber).

I know it's nit picky but these are $1699 speakers and should not be in this kind of shape. Thankfully mine are not at all like this but yeah just sharing.

On another note I just got Focal 906's and in my room actually prefer them to the R3. My room is on the smaller side and the R3 makes vocals way too thick due to the room I think. Focals front port and bass roll off gives the impression of clarity.

R3 in my room is audible down to 32hz which is crazy.

 

[Descartes]

I had previously purchased the R3 to compare with Meta and ended up keeping the R3 and recommended them to a friend who came by and listened to mine and fell in love.

He just bought a set and ended up returning them because of what we both consider pretty crappy build quality. The KEF logo on the front of one of the speakers was crooked, the bass drivers weren't centered in their housings and the "flares" or circular trim pieces that surround both drivers were all over the place between speakers in terms of depth/height. Lastly where the rubber surround meets the cone of the mid range driver is really messy on both (looks like torn rubber).

I know it's nit picky but these are $1699 speakers and should not be in this kind of shape. Thankfully mine are not at all like this but yeah just sharing.

On another note I just got Focal 906's and in my room actually prefer them to the R3. My room is on the smaller side and the R3 makes vocals way too thick due to the room I think. Focals front port and bass roll off gives the impression of clarity.

R3 in my room is audible down to 32hz which is crazy.

Interesting, Focsl in the US is way overpriced