KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF R3

[alitomr1979]

I appreciate you sharing all this info I’ll take firsthand experience with the product all day which you have plenty of, so much appreciated! Would I be able to plug the CXA61 into my Denon s760h?

Check to see if your Denon receiver has preamp outputs, which it should if if is a mid line unit.

What would be inconvenient and the main reason I wanted an upgrade (probably how I rationalized it) was because of the inconvenience of not having home theater bypass, which is a feature of some high-endish integrated amps with which you get to use one or more of its inputs as power amps, meaning you bypass the internal preamp of the integrated amplifier and can control the volume with the source, in this case your Denon receiver. The inconvenience is that you have to put the CXA61 at certain volume level (high) and calibrate/run room correction with it at one specific level. If you listen to music using other sources than your Denon as a source/DAC, which you will find you need after you listen to a another better stereo DAC, you won’t be listening to those other sources at such high level, or even at that fixed level, which means you will have to put the CXA61 to the exact same volume level when you go back to using your receiver. A little inconvenient but it can definitely be done.

My options were the Peachtree Nova 300 and Musical Fidelity M5si, and after finding out about the new and supposedly improved Amp500, I thought I could do better with separates, Amp500, a really good and praised DAC as the SMSL M400 and the Topping Pre90 as preamp. As you know I much preferred this combo to the M5si and against all other combos I managed to arrange during the weekend with equipment we had available (check my previous post in this thread).

Going back to your original question, I came back home and tested the new equipment with the R3s. I did not remove the dual subwoofer though.

My impressions: the Cambridge CXA81 IS A HELL OF AN AMP. I tried the M400 DAC with it and was impressed. Then I went with the new equipment and the first couple songs didn’t make anything outstanding and I noticed the slightly more clear and less meaty presentation of a the Amp500. But then a few high res songs started playing and I did notice how relaxed everything sounded and how the vocals were way more clear, bass notes, and crazy details especially of instruments’ decaying notes. Something really special was listening to Melody Gardot’s live “Deep within the corners of my mind”. At the beginning there is a Cello solo that is impressive and in the end of it there’s details I’ve never heard before. It was really something.

R3 vs LS50 metas. Really tough one. The metas I think definitely have a little more transparency. Or Maybe?. I don’t know if the much bigger and louder bass being produced by my two subs is masking the mids and highs a bit. Where the R3 take the cake easily is where it comes to presence. The sound is way more imposing. The Metas I think have better soundstage and probably instruments are a little easier to distinguish in an specific place.

If you are rocking and pushing the speakers the R3 are the way to go even though the metas seemed to me very improved compared to the OG LS50 when it comes to playing loud. The OGs lose composure rather early when it comes to playing loud, imho, which is one of the two reasons because I don’t think they are simply perfect (second is not being very dynamic).

You really can’t go wrong with neither. With both a subwoofer (or two to be setup in stereo, preferably) is going to take the experience to another level. The improvements in the metas are there. Are they better than the R3s? I think in some aspects. Overall it is still a too close to call, imho.

I hope I’ve been able to communicate some of the difference and help you with your decision.

 

[pielover74]

Check to see if you Denon receiver has preamp outputs, which it should if if is a mid line unit.

What would be inconvenient and the main reason I wanted an upgrade (probably how I rationalized it) was because of the inconvenience of not having home theater bypass, which is a feature of some high-endish integrated amps with which you get to use one or more of its inputs as power amps, meaning you bypass the internal preamp of the integrated amplifier and can control the volume with the source, in this case your Denon receiver. The inconvenience is that you have to put the CXA61 at certain volume level (high) and calibrate/run room correction with it at one specific level. If you listen to music using other sources than your Denon as a source/DAC, which you will find you need after you listen to a another better stereo DAC, you won’t be listening to those other sources at such high level, or even at that fixed level, which means you will have to put the CXA61 to the exact same volume level when you go back to using your receiver. A little inconvenient but it can definitely be done.

My options were the Peachtree Nova 300 and Musical Fidelity M5si, and after finding out about the new and supposedly improved Amp500, I thought I could do better with separates, Amp500, a really good and praised DAC as the SMSL M400 and the Topping Pre90 as preamp. As you know I much preferred this combo to the M5si and against all other combos I managed to arrange during the weekend with equipment we had available (check my previous post in this thread).

Going back to your original question, I came back home and tested the new equipment with the R3s. I did not remove the dual subwoofer though.

My impressions: the Cambridge CXA81 IS A HELL OF AN AMP. I tried the M400 DAC with it and was impressed. Then I went with the new equipment and the first couple songs didn’t make anything outstanding and I noticed the slightly more clear and less meaty presentation of a the Amp500. But then a few high res songs started playing and I did noticed how relaxed everything sounded and how the vocals were way more clear, bass notes, and crazy details especially of instruments decaying notes. Something really special was listening to Nelody Gardot’s live “Deep within the corners of my mind”. At the beginning there is a Cello solo that is impressive and in the end there’s details I’ve never heard before. It was really something.

R3 vs LS50 metas. Really tough one. The metas I think are definitely have a little more transparency. Maybe. I don’t know if the much bigger and louder bass being produced by my two subs is masking the kids and highs a bit. Where the R3 take the cake easily is where it comes to presence. The sound is way more imposing. The Metas I think have better soundstage and probably instruments are a little easier to distinguish in an specific place.

If you are rocking and pushing the speakers the R3 are the way to go even though the metas seemed to me very improved compared to the OG LS50 when it comes to playing loud. The OGs lose composure rather early when it comes to playing loud, imho, which is one of the two reasons because I don’t think they are simply perfect (second is not being very dynamic).

You really can’t go wrong with neither. With both a subwoofer (or two to be setup in stereo, preferably) is going to take the experience to another level. The improvements in the metas are there. Are they better than the R3s? I think in some aspects. Overall it is still a too close to call, imho.

I hope I’ve been able to communicate some of the difference and help you with your decision.

Literally helped communicate it as effectively as possible. I really appreciate you taking the time surmising all this info. I’ll look into these amps and see what I can do with my Denon. Seriously thanks again. Fantastic breakdown of everything

 

[Descartes]

So here is my conundrum, KEF will not sell a single R3 speakers do I can either do

- Three LS50 Meta
or
- a pair of KEF R3 and a Rc2

Which will work best for movies?

Ideally I would prefer three R3 but I don’t want to buy two pairs!

 

[dshreter]

So here is my conundrum, KEF will not sell a single R3 speakers do I can either do

- Three LS50 Meta
or
- a pair of KEF R3 and a Rc2

Which will work best for movies?

Ideally I would prefer three R3 but I don’t want to buy two pairs!

Find a local dealer. I bet they could sell you a demo unit or something and you’ll save a few bucks.

 

[alitomr1979]

So here is my conundrum, KEF will not sell a single R3 speakers do I can either do

- Three LS50 Meta
or
- a pair of KEF R3 and a Rc2

Which will work best for movies?

Ideally I would prefer three R3 but I don’t want to buy two pairs!

I think for most applications, being the exception big rooms, and movies, the Metas are probably the better speaker. This is true especially for people without the time or will to spend some time dialing in the R3s. In my small room the R3 sounded weird out of the box. I realized, or probably read in Amir’s review, that it is they have way too much bass for small room and that end up masking other frequencies.

I use Roon and started using it to EQ and integrate my dual stereo subs, and I am sure the Metas cannot do what I like about this system. But out of the box and mostly with an interesting variety of amplifiers the metas sounded magnificent. I’ve never felt that about the R3s.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I think for most applications, being the exception big rooms, and movies, the Metas are probably the better speaker. This is true especially for people without the time or will to spend some time dialing in the R3s. In my small room the R3 sounded weird out of the box. I realized, or probably read in Amir’s review, that it is they have way too much bass for small room and that end up masking other frequencies.

I use Roon and started using it to EQ and integrate my dual stereo subs, and I am sure the Metas cannot do what I like about this system. But out of the box and mostly with an interesting variety of amplifiers the metas sounded magnificent. I’ve never felt that about the R3s.

in my small room my R300 sounded weird because of a huge cancelation at 120hz~, that doesn't happen with my R7. I think its because these tower got 2 woofer in different places which help to a more even bass.

Anyway i prefer the towers just because sound more realistic with more weight. R7 and R11 gain efficiency in their bass, the uniq remain the same.


But yeah most of the time you are going to need spend some time with the R series, personally i fixed with a filing the shadow flare from my R7

 

[muad]

in my small room my R300 sounded weird because of a huge cancelation at 120hz~, that doesn't happen with my R7. I think its because these tower got 2 woofer in different places which help to a more even bass.

Anyway i prefer the towers just because sound more realistic with more weight. R7 and R11 gain efficiency in their bass, the uniq remain the same.


But yeah most of the time you are going to need spend some time with the R series, personally i fixed with a filing the shadow flare from my R7

Why didn't you just use dsp?

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Why didn't you just use dsp?

I do, but you need to fix the shadow flare with or without dsp. Is a physical thing, because it's a cancelation or something like that, you need to fix the problem as a priority.

The left shadow flare from my r7 was poorly meeting the uniq, i had to fix that shadow flare, the right shadow flare i fixed only with my fingers.

 

[Descartes]

So here is my conundrum, KEF will not sell a single R3 speakers do I can either do

- Three LS50 Meta
or
- a pair of KEF R3 and a Rc2

Which will work best for movies?

Ideally I would prefer three R3 but I don’t want to buy two pairs!

Adding to the post! I will cross over the speakers to 80HZ with dual
Sub

 

[dshreter]

Adding to the post! I will cross over the speakers to 80HZ with dual
Sub

Get whatever you think looks better or more easily fits your setup. If used with dual subs, there’s not that much to differentiate in terms of sound quality or cost.

 

[banjo!]

My issue is the same as someone else's. I'm planning on buying KEF R3 speakers for left and right. They won't sell one separate for a center channel. Do you think a LS50 Meta would be good for a center channel? Or would it be better to go with a Q650c. I'm using this system for about 80% movies and 20% music?

 

[alitomr1979]

Crazy cable management required around here….

Maybe this picture tells you what I prefer, considering I have an almost brand new white OG LS50 that my cousin bought presumably because he understood I gave him the go go get a pair for him to complete his 5.1 all LS50 system, as I was considering LS50s as LCR.

Something was lacking, and it was dynamics/slam. Yes, the dialogs were crystal clear, more than the Q600c, but the 600c is clear amazingly good already and provides more weight and dynamics.

I mentioned around here maybe in this same thread that I noticed the new metas improved on the OG in clarity, some added dynamics, and staying composed at higher volumes.

Do remember all this is subjective from my listening. For mostly movies I’d stick with R3s. For mostly music it is harder but I’d probably go with the Metas if you are not in a big room.

 

[banjo!]

View attachment 170258
Crazy cable management required around here….

Maybe this picture tells you what I prefer, considering I have an almost brand new white OG LS50 that my cousin bought presumably because he understood I gave him the go go get a pair for him to complete his 5.1 all LS50 system, as I was considering LS50s as LCR.

Something was lacking, and it was dynamics/slam. Yes, the dialogs were crystal clear, more than the Q600c, but the 600c is clear amazingly good already and provides more weight and dynamics.

I mentioned around here maybe in this same thread that I noticed the new metas improved on the OG in clarity, some added dynamics, and staying composed at higher volumes.

Do remember all this is subjective from my listening. For mostly movies I’d stick with R3s. For mostly music it is harder but I’d probably go with the Metas if you are not in a big room.

How do you think it would sound with R3s for left and right with LS50 Meta for center?

 

[alitomr1979]

How do you think it would sound with R3s for left and right with LS50 Meta for center?

Hey Banjo, I dont know, seriously. My experience with the LS50 as front wasnt satisfactory as I said, and even though the some of the issues that caused my dislike (dynamics, best performance when loud), they are still small monitors. Not only that, you would be putting them, next to speakers that if I have to use one word to describe I'd use imposing. That is something the LS50, OG or Metas, are not.

I'd say get them from a dealer that accepts home demos and try them with the alternative, R2C, and keep the one you like the most. My uncle has the R2c with his R300 and that thing is great as a center. I think most of its shortcomings (objective) dont have much impact on movie reproduction.

A few months ago a friend who works in a store that gives employees more than 50% discount over retail offered me to get the R2c with his discount, and it was like 675USD. I almost went for it, but I am honestly satisfied with the Q600c and I was considering making the upgrades I did last week, which for me, is very serious money.

Try both options n your house, yur setup. For me that is harder because i amnot in the US. The third R3 is more complicated as they are not sold as units, are they?

 

[buz]

R3 come two in a box

 

[gmoney]

I tried both of these and would take the R3 all day. I dunno how the LS50 Meta makes any sense given they are priced within $100 of each other currently. Unless you are extremely limited in space or have some aesthetic issue with the R3, it's the one to get unless you want less for your money buying a LS50.

Biggest issue I had with the LS50 is that it sounds small. Not sure how to describe it but the R3 sounds like a layered wall of sound where as the LS50 is far less impressive in it's presentation. Not making a big deal about bass response because both require a sub IMO.

 

[alitomr1979]

I tried both of these and would take the R3 all day. I dunno how the LS50 Meta makes any sense given they are priced within $100 of each other currently. Unless you are extremely limited in space or have some aesthetic issue with the R3, it's the one to get unless you want less for your money buying a LS50.

Biggest issue I had with the LS50 is that it sounds small. Not sure how to describe it but the R3 sounds like a layered wall of sound where as the LS50 is far less impressive in it's presentation. Not making a big deal about bass response because both require a sub IMO.

What amplifier did you use with the metas?

They did not sound small in my demos, specially when paired with very good amps. I’ve heard the original LS50 sounding “small” (basically from amplifiers very light on the bass and incapable of delivering a lot of current, and acquiring great character when paired with a different amp. Still, as I said, the R3 are imposing and the LS50 are not. But I really would not consider the Metas as getting less for your money. They have things in which they are a little better than the R3, like overall clarity, and the fact that they are not as picky to placement and room characteristics, and this is a plus for a lot of people who are not willing to put in the time necessary to make the R series shine. Maybe not audiophiles but the majority of people…

 

[muad]

What amplifier did you use with the metas?

They did not sound small in my demos, specially when paired with very good amps. I’ve heard the original LS50 sounding “small” (basically from amplifiers very light on the bass and incapable of delivering a lot of current, and acquiring great character when paired with a different amp. Still, as I said, the R3 are imposing and the LS50 are not. But I really would not consider the Metas as getting less for your money. They have things in which they are a little better than the R3, like overall clarity, and the fact that they are not as picky to placement and room characteristics, and this is a plus for a lot of people who are not willing to put in the time necessary to make the R series shine. Maybe not audiophiles but the majority of people…

Totally agree with this! I had the og ls50s, the metas and the R3, in a large reflective room. The metas are the most "right" sounding speaker I've had in this space. It's become my end game. Doesn't matter where you place them, they just sound incredible.

I found the R3 had a little glare or sharpness in the treble, similar to what I heard with the og LS50.

 

[gmoney]

What amplifier did you use with the metas?

They did not sound small in my demos, specially when paired with very good amps. I’ve heard the original LS50 sounding “small” (basically from amplifiers very light on the bass and incapable of delivering a lot of current, and acquiring great character when paired with a different amp. Still, as I said, the R3 are imposing and the LS50 are not. But I really would not consider the Metas as getting less for your money. They have things in which they are a little better than the R3, like overall clarity, and the fact that they are not as picky to placement and room characteristics, and this is a plus for a lot of people who are not willing to put in the time necessary to make the R series shine. Maybe not audiophiles but the majority of people…

I used a Pioneer VSX-LX305 in pure direct mode which I think is more than adequate.

 

[BoredErica]

I would've thought the speaker with wider dispersion (Meta) would sound "bigger" than one with smaller dispersion. Not that it's necessarily good or bad.

But one thing I like to mention is, we'd be EQing both speakers. Done correctly they will probably sound similar-ish. R3 does have elevated treble as shown in FR graphs that can be EQed down.