KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF R3

[Descartes]

Nowhere, people just love to make assumptions bases on nothing. I wish KEF had never released LS50 “Meta”…freaking lovely metamaterial…im part of the Kef Owners group and there isn’t a week where two or three times people ask the same thing…should I go “Ls50 Meta or R3”?
This last 5 years kef became that much mainstream now the vast majority of their customers are amateur that read a few guides on the internet, KEF customers used to be more loyal or fanboy enough to know about the company history and upgrade cycles and where they are going, and what’s their goals or company values.

No need for being so aggressive! This is a hobby, so being condescending is really out of place .

 

[Daverz]

The Buchardt looks to have wider horizontal dispersion(120°?) than the KEF(90°?).

I'm having trouble comparing the different plots. Amir likes to put text on the plot that messes up scaling visually. What are you looking at to figure out 120 and 90 degrees? Same problem with Erin's plots, since he doesn't always normalize intensity.

I do hear the narrow vertical dispersion of the S400s. The sound changes too much moving from sitting up to leaning back in my chair.

 

[sweetchaos]

I'm having trouble comparing the different plots.

How about now?

Spoiler

 

[Daverz]

How about now?

Thank you! The white lines help a lot. So the R3 dispersion looks to be about 25-30 degrees narrower than the S400.

I think I'm hearing that upper "eye" at 3K in the S400 vertical dispersion when I sit up in my chair. Perhaps I should try tilting the speakers up a bit more with some blu tack.

Spoiler

View attachment 163058
View attachment 163059

 

[Tokyo_John]

Where I live, the R3 pair alone are the same price as LS50Metas+KC-62. There is no contest at the same price point, the latter pairing blows away the R3 in every way imaginable (but requires a great deal more care in setting up/placement).

Not sure why KEF have such wildly varying prices from one country to the next…but your decision may depend on where you live.

 

[pielover74]

I know this is a meta vs r3 thread but does anyone have any idea how the Q650 sounds vs the klipsch rp 504c for center channel?

 

[BoredErica]

Is there any official spec for minimum recommended listening distance from the R3? I'd imagine they might not be as good for very nearfield listening like I do, which would be about 20in away.

 

[tecnogadget]

Is there any official spec for minimum recommended listening distance from the R3? I'd imagine they might not be as good for very nearfield listening like I do, which would be about 20in away.

I’ve seen several folks and studios using them as nearfield on YouTube. I can’t see any downside besides its a big speaker and you need the space to accommodate them…

 

[sweetchaos]

I know this is a meta vs r3 thread but does anyone have any idea how the Q650 sounds vs the klipsch rp 504c for center channel?

Ignoring the sound quality aspect, a traditional 2-way MTM (midwoofer, tweeter, midwoofer) like the Klipsch rp 504c (see Fig1A below) is going to have major issues off-axis horizontally.

Spoiler

Here's a very similar center speaker, Polk R350 that Amir reviewed recently.
Take a look at this horizontal directivity/dispersion pattern and notice how the red region is very thin (meaning, you have to sit within about +-10 degrees horizontally of the tweeter's on-axis response in order to hear a +-3db window of sound. If you estimate further, if you sit +-20 degrees horizontally, you'll lose about +-6db of sound. In other words, if you're sitting straight in the center of the tweeter, you'll have a good time. Anyone sitting on the couch besides you...not so much! Which defeats the purpose of having a center channel that everyone around can hear.

Spoiler

So what's the solution?
Either:
- Fig1C above, which is a 3-way center channel.
- Coaxial center channel, like the Kef Q650C or Kef R2C

First, let's take a look at a good 3-way center channel, like the Ascend Acoustics Horizon that Amir reviewed.
Here's the horizontal directivity/dispersion:

Spoiler

Look at how wide the red region is...it's +-60 deg horizontally, for the most part.
This means anyone sitting to the side of the tweeter, at around 60 deg, will have experience great sound. Perfect for a couch or home theater setup with multiple seats.

Also, let's see a good coaxial center channel, like Kef R2C that Erin reviewed.
It's a 2.5 way design, but very close to a traditional 3-way, just with a tweeter and midrange driver combined.
Again, horizontal directivity/dispersion shows a wide area, of about +-50 degrees.
This also means everyone around you is going to hear the sound at the same loudness as you and everyone is going to have a good time!

Spoiler

I understand why manufacturers still offer a MTM center channel...it's because they can be very THIN (in height), as to mimick the soundbar, and would be able to fit into lots of TV cabinets....BUT the physics of doing this type of design is restricting anyone outside of the main listening position from having a good time.

That's why we need more 3-way/coaxial center channels measured...so we can start to make good recommendations.

To answer your question, ignoring sound quality, the Kef Q650C would be my pick, over the Klipsch rp 504c.

 

[pielover74]

Ignoring the sound quality aspect, a traditional 2-way MTM (midwoofer, tweeter, midwoofer) like the Klipsch rp 504c (see Fig1A below) is going to have major issues off-axis horizontally.

Spoiler

Here's a very similar center speaker, Polk R350 that Amir reviewed recently.
Take a look at this horizontal directivity/dispersion pattern and notice how the red region is very thin (meaning, you have to sit within about +-10 degrees horizontally of the tweeter's on-axis response in order to hear a +-3db window of sound. If you estimate further, if you sit +-20 degrees horizontally, you'll lose about +-6db of sound. In other words, if you're sitting straight in the center of the tweeter, you'll have a good time. Anyone sitting on the couch besides you...not so much! Which defeats the purpose of having a center channel that everyone around can hear.

Spoiler

View attachment 165413

So what's the solution?
Either:
- Fig1C above, which is a 3-way center channel.
- Coaxial center channel, like the Kef Q650C or Kef R2C

First, let's take a look at a good 3-way center channel, like the Ascend Acoustics Horizon that Amir reviewed.
Here's the horizontal directivity/dispersion:

Spoiler

View attachment 165418

Look at how wide the red region is...it's +-60 deg horizontally, for the most part.
This means anyone sitting to the side of the tweeter, at around 60 deg, will have experience great sound. Perfect for a couch or home theater setup with multiple seats.

Also, let's see a good coaxial center channel, like Kef R2C that Erin reviewed.
It's a 2.5 way design, but very close to a traditional 3-way, just with a tweeter and midrange driver combined.
Again, horizontal directivity/dispersion shows a wide area, of about +-50 degrees.
This also means everyone around you is going to hear the sound at the same loudness as you and everyone is going to have a good time!

Spoiler

View attachment 165422

I understand why manufacturers still offer a MTM center channel...it's because they can be very THIN (in height), as to mimick the soundbar, and would be able to fit into lots of TV cabinets....BUT the physics of doing this type of design is restricting anyone outside of the main listening position from having a good time.

That's why we need more 3-way/coaxial center channels measured...so we can start to make good recommendations.

To answer your question, ignoring sound quality, the Kef Q650C would be my pick, over the Klipsch rp 504c.

My god!! Thank you so much for the detailed response and making it and interesting explanation. It made it easy to digest. If there was a Reddit gold system on here I’d award you for it. I think I’ll go with the R2C then since you listed that as a viable alternative. I really really appreciate it. I also have the ls50 meta/R3ms coming in for the fronts do you think I should also try the Reval m16 or will I be satisfied with these

 

[sweetchaos]

My god!! Thank you so much for the detailed response and making it and interesting explanation. It made it easy to digest. If there was a Reddit gold system on here I’d award you for it. I think I’ll go with the R2C then since you listed that as a viable alternative. I really really appreciate it. I also have the ls50 meta/R3ms coming in for the fronts do you think I should also try the Reval m16 or will I be satisfied with these

I've demo'd both Kef LS50 Meta vs Kef R3 last week, just not at the same time.
Both sound excellent, but once you start to turn up the volume, the LS50 Meta falls apart, which we know will happen, as Amir noted in his review. In other words, they are loudness limited. Also, as Amir noted, the distortion of LS50 Meta is worse than R3's.

Here in Canada, the price difference between LS50 Meta and R3 is only +28% (or extra CDN$400), which is negligible. With the R3, you get a 3-way speaker, instead of a 2-way. You get ability to play much louder and with much better distortion handling. In my mind, the only reason to NOT get the R3 is if you're completely short on space and the LS50 Meta is the only thing that can fit. Otherwise, R3 wins in every regard.

Revel M16 vs R3 is an interesting comparison.

Kef R3:
- is US$1700/pair =>or 70% more expensive
- Preference Score is 6.5 and would be 8.2 with a perfect subwoofer. => So will be more preferred, in a blind listening test
- Bass extension: 35Hz at -6dB => this will be immediately noticeably better (with no subwoofer) over the M16's
- We don't have distortion graphs from Amir, since he changed his methodology after testing this speaker, so we can't directly compare at 86db and 96db levels. But we know that a 3-way speaker typically can handle distortion better than a 2-way, so we can assume R3 will win this battle.
- Has narrower horizontal directivity (around +-30 deg within +-3db window) => this is a personal preference (some people like narrow dispersion speakers in home theater for example over the wider dispersion speakers, others like wider dispersion speakers for stereo setups)
- Has perfect vertical directivity => due to coaxil design => so if you have multiple rows of home theater seats, or you have kids, or you like to sit up or lay down to watch the TV, a coaxial speaker will help since the sound profile won't change as you move up/down
- Power handling. => I'm guessing R3 will play louder than M16, due to a 3-way design, but that's not to say the M16 is a slouch, since I've seen much much worse designs that can't handle power. Both will be excellent anyway.

Revel M16:
- is US$1000/pair => wins
- Preference Score is 5.6 and would be 7.7 with a perfect subwoofer. => Will be less preferred in a blind test, but still excellent, since Revel knows how to design speakers. In other words, just because this is lower preference score, doesnt mean it's bad. There are hundreds of worse speakers than M16.
- Bass extension: 45Hz at -6dB => this will be immediately noticeably worse (with no subwoofer) over the R3's
- We don't have distortion graphs from Amir, since he changed his methodology after testing this speaker, so we can't directly compare at 86db and 96db levels. But we know that a 3-way speaker typically can handle distortion better than a 2-way, so we can assume R3 will win this battle.
- Has wider horizontal directivity, looks to be around +-50 deg horizontally within +-3db window. => this is a personal preference (some people like narrow dispersion speakers in home theater for example over the wider dispersion speakers, others like wider dispersion speakers for stereo setups)
- Has narrow vertical directivity, which is typical for a 2-way, looks to be around +-10 degrees vertically. But as long as you don't move up/down too much, you'll be fine.
- Power handling => I'm guessing R3 will play louder than M16, due to a 3-way design, but that's not to say the M16 is a slouch, since I've seen much much worse designs that can't handle power. Both will be excellent anyway.

Comparison:

Spoiler

It's like choosing a sports car, do you choose a Ferrari or Lamborghini? Pick either. They're both beautiful.

Kef R2C are excellent for a center channel, regardless of what other speakers you have.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

- We don't have distortion graphs from Amir, since he changed his methodology after testing this speaker, so we can't directly compare at 86db and 96db levels. But we know that a 3-way speaker typically can handle distortion better than a 2-way, so we can assume R3 will win this battle.

But we have the Erin graph, KEF R3 vs LS50 W II.

96dB

 

[sweetchaos]

I knew that...

Thanks.
LS50 Wireless 2 is LS50Meta + built-in amps, for those who don't know.

 

[pielover74]

I've demo'd both Kef LS50 Meta vs Kef R3 last week, just not at the same time.
Both sound excellent, but once you start to turn up the volume, the LS50 Meta falls apart, which we know will happen, as Amir noted in his review. In other words, they are loudness limited. Also, as Amir noted, the distortion of LS50 Meta is worse than R3's.

Here in Canada, the price difference between LS50 Meta and R3 is only +28% (or extra CDN$400), which is negligible. With the R3, you get a 3-way speaker, instead of a 2-way. You get ability to play much louder and with much better distortion handling. In my mind, the only reason to NOT get the R3 is if you're completely short on space and the LS50 Meta is the only thing that can fit. Otherwise, R3 wins in every regard.

Revel M16 vs R3 is an interesting comparison.

Kef R3:
- is US$1700/pair =>or 70% more expensive
- Preference Score is 6.5 and would be 8.2 with a perfect subwoofer. => So will be more preferred, in a blind listening test
- Bass extension: 35Hz at -6dB => this will be immediately noticeably better (with no subwoofer) over the M16's
- We don't have distortion graphs from Amir, since he changed his methodology after testing this speaker, so we can't directly compare at 86db and 96db levels. But we know that a 3-way speaker typically can handle distortion better than a 2-way, so we can assume R3 will win this battle.
- Has narrower horizontal directivity (around +-30 deg within +-3db window) => this is a personal preference (some people like narrow dispersion speakers in home theater for example over the wider dispersion speakers, others like wider dispersion speakers for stereo setups)
- Has perfect vertical directivity => due to coaxil design => so if you have multiple rows of home theater seats, or you have kids, or you like to sit up or lay down to watch the TV, a coaxial speaker will help since the sound profile won't change as you move up/down
- Power handling. => I'm guessing R3 will play louder than M16, due to a 3-way design, but that's not to say the M16 is a slouch, since I've seen much much worse designs that can't handle power. Both will be excellent anyway.

Revel M16:
- is US$1000/pair => wins
- Preference Score is 5.6 and would be 7.7 with a perfect subwoofer. => Will be less preferred in a blind test, but still excellent, since Revel knows how to design speakers. In other words, just because this is lower preference score, doesnt mean it's bad. There are hundreds of worse speakers than M16.
- Bass extension: 45Hz at -6dB => this will be immediately noticeably worse (with no subwoofer) over the R3's
- We don't have distortion graphs from Amir, since he changed his methodology after testing this speaker, so we can't directly compare at 86db and 96db levels. But we know that a 3-way speaker typically can handle distortion better than a 2-way, so we can assume R3 will win this battle.
- Has wider horizontal directivity, looks to be around +-50 deg horizontally within +-3db window. => this is a personal preference (some people like narrow dispersion speakers in home theater for example over the wider dispersion speakers, others like wider dispersion speakers for stereo setups)
- Has narrow vertical directivity, which is typical for a 2-way, looks to be around +-10 degrees vertically. But as long as you don't move up/down too much, you'll be fine.
- Power handling => I'm guessing R3 will play louder than M16, due to a 3-way design, but that's not to say the M16 is a slouch, since I've seen much much worse designs that can't handle power. Both will be excellent anyway.

Comparison:

Spoiler

View attachment 165499

View attachment 165497
View attachment 165498
View attachment 165502

It's like choosing a sports car, do you choose a Ferrari or Lamborghini? Pick either. They're both beautiful.

Kef R2C are excellent for a center channel, regardless of what other speakers you have.

Once again!! HUGE THANK YOU!!!!!! I don’t even know how to express this. I’m really looking forward to testing these out. It’ll be in a small apartment living room so it sounds like the r3 will end up being the better choice. I’ve got the svs sb 1000 pro as a sub and q150’s for surrounds. I’ll stick with deciding between the R3 and Meta’s then. No need for the reval then. Appreciate you taking the time breaking down and analyzing this

 

[dominikz]

- Preference Score is 5.6 and would be 7.7 with a perfect subwoofer. => Will be less preferred in a blind test, but still excellent, since Revel knows how to design speakers. In other words, just because this is lower preference score, doesnt mean it's bad. There are hundreds of worse speakers than M16.

Just yesterday I was playing with some EQ variants and noticed that M16 preference score goes up to just a bit over 6 if you just flatten-out the bass bump with EQ and don't touch anything else.
This is to say that in a system with some kind of room EQ you get better performance than it may seem just looking at the raw score (plus the bump gives you more headroom for LF EQ in the first place).
Due to very nice directivity the score can improve further if you try to optimize for preference score (though this may be well into diminishing returns).

 

[tecnogadget]

@sweetchaos Excellent post #89 . Im sure it was a typo but R2C is 3-Way (real dual bass drivers) and Q650 the 2.5-Way (ABR drivers)

 

[BoredErica]

I’ve seen several folks and studios using them as nearfield on YouTube. I can’t see any downside besides its a big speaker and you need the space to accommodate them…

I think listening too close is not good for sound quality. For example here is a page by Genelec about sitting too close to their speakers harming sound quality: https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors

There they even give estimates based on specific models, with larger models needing you to sit further away from the different drivers so the sound is more coherent. Neumann has minimum listening distance recommendations for their speakers and they increase as their speakers get larger.

I bring this up because I sit very close to my speakers currently out of nessesity. 19-20in away. The LS50 Metas don't go as loud in the bass but I'm already sitting so close. The R3 have better preference score but it's for far field. I wonder if at such short listening differences the LS50 Meta can eek out an advantage, especially since I'm comparing R3 to a speaker where the tweeter and the normal driver are at the same spot.

Also, page 9 of the R3 manual states the minimum recommended distance of the R3 from the wall is 9 inches. I can do like 3 inches away, that's it.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I think listening too close is not good for sound quality. For example here is a page by Genelec about sitting too close to their speakers harming sound quality: https://www.genelec.com/correct-monitors

There they even give estimates based on specific models, with larger models needing you to sit further away from the different drivers so the sound is more coherent. Neumann has minimum listening distance recommendations for their speakers and they increase as their speakers get larger.

I bring this up because I sit very close to my speakers currently out of nessesity. 19-20in away. The LS50 Metas don't go as loud in the bass but I'm already sitting so close. The R3 have better preference score but it's for far field. I wonder if at such short listening differences the LS50 Meta can eek out an advantage, especially since I'm comparing R3 to a speaker where the tweeter and the normal driver are at the same spot.

Also, page 9 of the R3 manual states the minimum recommended distance of the R3 from the wall is 9 inches. I can do like 3 inches away, that's it.

I use my R7 at 22 cm from the wall, but i EQ them.

 

[pielover74]

Is there anything I need to adjust on my avr aka Denon s760h. I have and svs sb 1000pro when testing these two out? Or will audessy take care of offloading bass onto the sub?

 

[SynthesisCinema]

Ignoring the sound quality aspect, a traditional 2-way MTM (midwoofer, tweeter, midwoofer) like the Klipsch rp 504c (see Fig1A below) is going to have major issues off-axis horizontally.

Spoiler

Here's a very similar center speaker, Polk R350 that Amir reviewed recently.
Take a look at this horizontal directivity/dispersion pattern and notice how the red region is very thin (meaning, you have to sit within about +-10 degrees horizontally of the tweeter's on-axis response in order to hear a +-3db window of sound. If you estimate further, if you sit +-20 degrees horizontally, you'll lose about +-6db of sound. In other words, if you're sitting straight in the center of the tweeter, you'll have a good time. Anyone sitting on the couch besides you...not so much! Which defeats the purpose of having a center channel that everyone around can hear.

Spoiler

View attachment 165413

So what's the solution?
Either:
- Fig1C above, which is a 3-way center channel.
- Coaxial center channel, like the Kef Q650C or Kef R2C

First, let's take a look at a good 3-way center channel, like the Ascend Acoustics Horizon that Amir reviewed.
Here's the horizontal directivity/dispersion:

Spoiler

View attachment 165418

Look at how wide the red region is...it's +-60 deg horizontally, for the most part.
This means anyone sitting to the side of the tweeter, at around 60 deg, will have experience great sound. Perfect for a couch or home theater setup with multiple seats.

Also, let's see a good coaxial center channel, like Kef R2C that Erin reviewed.
It's a 2.5 way design, but very close to a traditional 3-way, just with a tweeter and midrange driver combined.
Again, horizontal directivity/dispersion shows a wide area, of about +-50 degrees.
This also means everyone around you is going to hear the sound at the same loudness as you and everyone is going to have a good time!

Spoiler

View attachment 165422

I understand why manufacturers still offer a MTM center channel...it's because they can be very THIN (in height), as to mimick the soundbar, and would be able to fit into lots of TV cabinets....BUT the physics of doing this type of design is restricting anyone outside of the main listening position from having a good time.

That's why we need more 3-way/coaxial center channels measured...so we can start to make good recommendations.

To answer your question, ignoring sound quality, the Kef Q650C would be my pick, over the Klipsch rp 504c.

Klipsch RP-504c is 2,5-way design which should be little better than 2-way MTM if listeners sitting wider on couch, right? The smaller Klipsch center model is 2-way design and we can see the issues 20-40degree off-axis. Measurements here:

The folly of a horizontal centre channel speaker - RP-250C measurements

Dear all, I good friend has built an amazing home theatre, actually its the best I've ever experienced. It has an all Klipsch front end - he was sold after hearing my KG-5.5's. , in ceiling speakers for side and surround and five subwoofers. Pioneer receiver, Behringer DCX-2496 for sub optimisati...

community.klipsch.com

"The Klipsch with 4 woofers are 2.5 way. The inner woofers are midrange and the outer woofers are mid bass."

CROSSOVER FREQUENCY 500Hz/1500Hz