KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF R3

[pielover74]

First of all, reposition the R2C so it's at the front edge of your cabinet. Sound reflections from the top of the cabinet will be generating an uneven response. (Then you'll just need to worry about the light reflections from the top of the R2C...) And readjust distance/level settings and/or rerun Audyssey.

Certainly the centre's going to be doing more work than the L+R.

If listening to 2.0 music via the Dolby Surround upmix, you probably want to turn on "Centre Spread". Should normally be off for TV stuff where you want the centre focus on the screen.

But it may be the case that you ultimately prefer sticking with Stereo mode for 2.0 music. The centre channel is primarily there to anchor dialogue and other sound effects to the screen for off-centre viewers. That anchoring can have the effect of excessively collapsing the stereo image in a music upmix, hence the "Centre Spread" option (similar to Dolby Pro Logic II Music mode), which compromises by using all 3 fronts for "centre" signals.

Multichannel music can choose how to use the 3 fronts - so the mixer effectively has a "width" control in addition to basic panning - but when you're feeding it 2.0 stereo, then any use of the centre is deviating from the original mix intent. Music in multichannel film and TV will often also be using just L+R.

The S760H does have a tone control, but apparently it doesn't work with Audyssey Dynamic EQ enabled. You should be able to achieve tone shifts via the Audyssey editor app if necessary.

Any advice if I can’t fit it in front of the tv due to the depth. The speakers are a couple inches clear of the back of the tv so I figured I’d still get a similar sound signature. I’m not sure if the picture really shows that or if it makes it look like more of the tv is blocking it. I’m watching anime that’s in Dolby digital 2.0 so maybe turning on centre spread will help fix that. Awesome! Thanks for the audessy app recommendation because I do have EQ enabled. Hopefully that’ll solve the bass control. I just found the centre option and that definitely helps! Much appreciated for all the help

 

[KMO]

I've not personally used Dolby Surround, but assuming its Centre Spread works like Dolby PLII Music, I wouldn't personally use it for normal content. I reserve it for predominantly-music stuff. But it's up to you! If you don't have off-centre listeners, there's no huge downside to having it on.

I similarly struggled with centre positioning (don't we all?). I hadn't realised your speaker was actually behind the TV - I assumed you could just slide it forward while still being under the TV. That occlusion will also be a refraction problem, but probably not as bad as the speaker firing along the top surface of the cabinet, which is what I was worried about.

I tried a set of feet to lift my TV to fit my centre LS50 underneath (bit fatter than the R2C), but wasn't happy with the height of the screen (or the rigidity of the feet). I ended up putting the centre into my cabinet. (pic here)

Maybe you could do that, although it does put it even lower (you want your front 3 in-line as much as possible). Your central cabinet section is wide enough. Remove the top centre door, place it as high as you can in the central space, angled up, and fill the gaps around it if possible.

 

[pielover74]

I've not personally used Dolby Surround, but assuming its Centre Spread works like Dolby PLII Music, I wouldn't personally use it for normal content. I reserve it for predominantly-music stuff. But it's up to you! If you don't have off-centre listeners, there's no huge downside to having it on.

I similarly struggled with centre positioning (don't we all?). I hadn't realised your speaker was actually behind the TV - I assumed you could just slide it forward while still being under the TV. That occlusion will also be a refraction problem, but probably not as bad as the speaker firing along the top surface of the cabinet, which is what I was worried about.

I tried a set of feet to lift my TV to fit my centre LS50 underneath (bit fatter than the R2C), but wasn't happy with the height of the screen (or the rigidity of the feet). I ended up putting the centre into my cabinet. (pic here)

Maybe you could do that, although it does put it even lower (you want your front 3 in-line as much as possible). Your central cabinet section is wide enough. Remove the top centre door, place it as high as you can in the central space, angled up, and fill the gaps around it if possible.

Once again thank you for the detailed analysis Oh your setup is sick!! It might be easier remounting the tv just one inch higher, I liked where it was for the same reason as you. Perfect angle considering my couch height. Tv cabinet might be difficult for me just because it’s got all my gaming stuff in it and it would be tough putting all my controllers accessories in another room :/ apartment living sucks lol

 

[Descartes]

R3 is noticeably better. That coax design they use doesn't do so hot without a woofer.
LS50 at 86 and 96 dB %THD (0.5% is -50dB; 1% is -40dB; 3% is -30dB)

Vs Erin's measurements of the R3 (from www.erinsaudiocorner.com )

Notice that the R3s deal with higher levels better, especially at low frequencies - the LS50 falls apart around 100hz, where the R3 is fine down to about 60hz.

Ok but what if I cross them over at 100hz! I have two subs.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Ok but what if I cross them over at 100hz! I have two subs.

It will be better, but you can cross at 100hz or 80hz the R3 too.

 

[Ata]

Ok but what if I cross them over at 100hz! I have two subs.

If you cross the R3 at 80/100 Hz you will arrest the THD growth at high SPL, it will be determined by the THD of the sub(s). You can hardly go wrong if you manage the sub integration reasonably well.

 

[Descartes]

If you cross the R3 at 80/100 Hz you will arrest the THD growth at high SPL, it will be determined by the THD of the sub(s). You can hardly go wrong if you manage the sub integration reasonably well.

Not sure I follow are you saying that regardless the R3 will be able to play louder than the LS50 meta without distortion?

 

[Ata]

Not sure I follow are you saying that regardless the R3 will be able to play louder than the LS50 meta without distortion?

Yes, under all circumstances, with or without sub, R3 will play louder than LS50M before THD goes out of control, due to the extra woofer covering sound to 400Hz. Whether than matters, depends on your room size, MLP distance to speakers, and personal loudness preference. In my application, LS50M go loud enough, I shared the setup and measurements on one of the KEF LS50M threads here.

 

[Sunsetter]

This thread is addressing exactly the decision I am facing right now (especially given that the price of the R3 is currently the same as LS50 Meta), but my use case is different than what I am seeing discussed here. I have been considering the LS50s for a music-only stereo system for a largish (20' x 12') dining room with 9.5' ceiling. The speakers would be along one of the 12' walls. The opposite side is more than 50% open to a 24' foot long living room. I am inclined towards the LS50s since the small size, shape and color choices will achieve wife acceptance (as well as that of our interior decorator), but am questioning whether these will be sufficient for this use case. This will be for background music during meals, so high volume listening is not part of the picture. But, the listening positions will range from 4 feet to 13 feet way (9 foot dining table). Power will come from a Yamaha WXA-50, which is well-reviewed here and compatible with three other Yamaha MusicCast enabled receivers I have in the house. Note that a subwoofer in the dining room is out of the question given my desire to stay married. I unfortunately do not have any ability to do in-home demos of these. Any thoughts from people who understand the science here better than I do on what is likely to work better would be much appreciated!

 

[dc655321]

This thread is addressing exactly the decision I am facing right now (especially given that the price of the R3 is currently the same as LS50 Meta), but my use case is different than what I am seeing discussed here. I have been considering the LS50s for a music-only stereo system for a largish (20' x 12') dining room with 9.5' ceiling. The speakers would be along one of the 12' walls. The opposite side is more than 50% open to a 24' foot long living room. I am inclined towards the LS50s since the small size, shape and color choices will achieve wife acceptance (as well as that of our interior decorator), but am questioning whether these will be sufficient for this use case. This will be for background music during meals, so high volume listening is not part of the picture. But, the listening positions will range from 4 feet to 13 feet way (9 foot dining table). Power will come from a Yamaha WXA-50, which is well-reviewed here and compatible with three other Yamaha MusicCast enabled receivers I have in the house. Note that a subwoofer in the dining room is out of the question given my desire to stay married. I unfortunately do not have any ability to do in-home demos of these. Any thoughts from people who understand the science here better than I do on what is likely to work better would be much appreciated!

Given your use case, why not just purchase an Apple Homepod or some Sonos Play:1 speakers? Seriously.

 

[Sunsetter]

Given your use case, why not just purchase an Apple Homepod or some Sonos Play:1 speakers? Seriously.

I still care about stereo sound, and sound quality in general, even in this use case. I also do want to extend whole home audio that is enabled by the Yamaha MusicCast system I already have invested in with respect to my living room, family room and media room.

 

[aarons915]

This thread is addressing exactly the decision I am facing right now (especially given that the price of the R3 is currently the same as LS50 Meta), but my use case is different than what I am seeing discussed here. I have been considering the LS50s for a music-only stereo system for a largish (20' x 12') dining room with 9.5' ceiling. The speakers would be along one of the 12' walls. The opposite side is more than 50% open to a 24' foot long living room. I am inclined towards the LS50s since the small size, shape and color choices will achieve wife acceptance (as well as that of our interior decorator), but am questioning whether these will be sufficient for this use case. This will be for background music during meals, so high volume listening is not part of the picture. But, the listening positions will range from 4 feet to 13 feet way (9 foot dining table). Power will come from a Yamaha WXA-50, which is well-reviewed here and compatible with three other Yamaha MusicCast enabled receivers I have in the house. Note that a subwoofer in the dining room is out of the question given my desire to stay married. I unfortunately do not have any ability to do in-home demos of these. Any thoughts from people who understand the science here better than I do on what is likely to work better would be much appreciated!

I just moved from a house with a very small room to a loft with 12' ceilings and 15' width with about a 10' listening distance and the LS50 are even better in this room, which was surprising. Based on this, I now believe your listening distance and max required SPL are the main considerations when considering if a speaker is loud enough for your needs. Another thing that benefits the LS50 and all speakers are the larger room generally means further distances to the walls which pushes the bass peaks and nulls lower in frequency well below the crossover point. My small room had nulls in the 100-120Hz range that made higher crossover points hard to integrate but the bigger room has much more bass response in this area and I use a 120Hz crossover with no issues, my acoustic crossover point is actually right around 80Hz with this setup so localization is no issue. I personally think the Metas are the better speaker and with subs crossed in the 100-120Hz range, distortion shouldn't be an issue, especially since you don't seem to be cranking them.

 

[Ata]

This thread is addressing exactly the decision I am facing right now (especially given that the price of the R3 is currently the same as LS50 Meta), but my use case is different than what I am seeing discussed here. I have been considering the LS50s for a music-only stereo system for a largish (20' x 12') dining room with 9.5' ceiling. The speakers would be along one of the 12' walls. The opposite side is more than 50% open to a 24' foot long living room. I am inclined towards the LS50s since the small size, shape and color choices will achieve wife acceptance (as well as that of our interior decorator), but am questioning whether these will be sufficient for this use case. This will be for background music during meals, so high volume listening is not part of the picture. But, the listening positions will range from 4 feet to 13 feet way (9 foot dining table). Power will come from a Yamaha WXA-50, which is well-reviewed here and compatible with three other Yamaha MusicCast enabled receivers I have in the house. Note that a subwoofer in the dining room is out of the question given my desire to stay married. I unfortunately do not have any ability to do in-home demos of these. Any thoughts from people who understand the science here better than I do on what is likely to work better would be much appreciated!

The Metas will work fine SPL wise and your amp is powerful enough to drive them to very loud levels. The only thing to watch is distance to the back wall and its impact on base. If you need them to be closer than about 2' there are plugs you can install in the rear ports to tame any bass peaks.

There are many subwoofers these days with a high WAF, something like KEF KC62 or SVS Micro is tiny and inobtrusive but could be quite a bit more expensive than, say, SVS SB-1000 Pro -- one foot cubed, polished black as a good piano. When my wife saw the latter, she thought it is very small and cute (coming from a 12" ported 18 yo sub of the past). Perhaps I am lucky that my wife cares about audio and video quality quite a bit, and open to minor visual compromises.

 

[pielover74]

Sorry to revive this thread. It’s seems people are having the dialogue bleed issues with some of the new Yamaha avr’s. I still have my Denon s760h driving my ls meta’s and r2c. Am I missing out on anything by not having more than 75watts per channel. I don’t really play at loud volumes, but I was wondering if there are any better avr’s around this price or a little more. The new Onkyo or Pioneers maybe?

 

[tifune]

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

Just curious, could you elaborate on that a bit? I think because the score was so low compared to rest of the R series, even the R5, people have dismissed it almost entirely in favor of just getting another R3.

 

[alitomr1979]

Sorry to revive this thread. It’s seems people are having the dialogue bleed issues with some of the new Yamaha avr’s. I still have my Denon s760h driving my ls meta’s and r2c. Am I missing out on anything by not having more than 75watts per channel. I don’t really play at loud volumes, but I was wondering if there are any better avr’s around this price or a little more. The new Onkyo or Pioneers maybe?

I have been trying the new metas with the Peachtree Amp500 and it has been side by side with Musical Fidelity M5si and Emotiva XPA-2 Gen3 and none can hold its bottle. I was surprised to notice such an important difference especially with the Amp500 and the M5si since it is so damn hard to find a critical review of that amplifier. Make no mistake, the M5si sounds great, but there is something lacking, it is just too mellow and doesn’t grab your attention like the Amp500 does.

I am in love with my Cambridge CXA81 but the SMSL M400 (dac used for all the testing we have done this weekend) is just leaps way. So many familiar songs and I am hearing so many different and impressive things with the Amp500, I am glad I decided to try it because I almost go directly to the M5si.

All this is subjective testing with my uncle. I’ve never heard these amps with my current setup, R3s, but we did make comparisons between the metas and the original, and the same qualities and differences in the amps were evident.

Also worth mentioning is that with all these amps and the M400 dac, the added clarity and improved soundstage of the new Metas was evident. I wouldn’t can’t it jaw dropping improvement, but very noticeable, and since the old LS50 were already incredibly jaw dropping an improvement makes the Metas something extra special.

With all that said I think I still prefer the extra weight and authority of the R3s. I will let you know when I get back home with the new equipment.

 

[pielover74]

I have been trying the new metas with the Peachtree Amp500 and it has been side by side with Musical Fidelity M5si and Emotiva XPA-2 Gen3 and none can hold its bottle. I was surprised to notice such an important difference especially with the Amp500 and the M5si since it is so damn hard to find a critical review of that amplifier. Make no mistake, the M5si sounds great, but there is something lacking, it is just too mellow and doesn’t grab your attention like the Amp500 does.

I am in love with my Cambridge CXA81 but the SMSL M400 (dac used for all the testing we have done this weekend) is just leaps way. So many familiar songs and I am hearing so many different and impressive things with the Amp500, I am glad I decided to try it because I almost go directly to the M5si.

All this is subjective testing with my uncle. I’ve never heard these amps with my current setup, R3s, but we did make comparisons between the metas and the original, and the same qualities and differences in the amps were evident.

Also worth mentioning is that with all these amps and the M400 dac, the added clarity and improved soundstage of the new Metas was evident. I wouldn’t can’t it jaw dropping improvement, but very noticeable, and since the old LS50 were already incredibly jaw dropping an improvement makes the Metas something extra special.

With all that said I think I still prefer the extra weight and authority of the R3s. I will let you know when I get back home with the new equipment.

Thanks for the input on this. Do you think a avr that’s 100watts would be sufficient. I returned my R3’s and kept my metas but I keep wondering “what if” Can’t go wrong with either, and my untrained ears couldn’t tell a difference although my Denon s760h does only provide 75watts

 

[BoredErica]

This is just an analysis from somebody who doesn't know that much but I thought I'd share my 2 cents anyways. I use Spinorama github page. You can open both in new tabs and tab back and forth to compare to follow along as I go chart by chart down the pages. https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/KEF R3/ASR/index_asr.html https://pierreaubert.github.io/spinorama/KEF LS50 Meta/ASR/index_asr.html

Loudness: R3 wins. I don't care about loudness, and listening nearfield with sub crossover at 100hz I really think I have no reason to worry about distortions. You should always be using a sub anyways unless you're extremely space limited, so the 'needs a sub' argument is irrelevant. I don't see good studies showing people can localize at 100hz. R3's higher sensitivity will help you push out very loud SPLs if you need that.

On axis FR: R3 wins. Audibility seems questionable to me due to how wide our hearing filters get at higher frequencies but flatter is better. With EQ R3 is still ahead, except maybe 10-20k. I dunno what is going on there with R3... (It is present in Erin's measurements as well.)

LW: Meta wins. Meta just looks more organized to me.

In room: Tied. Meta is choppier but not extremely so and only for narrow parts of the frequency. I think what we hear is a straight line, not the dips and peaks. If anything R3 is weaker here with something going on with 15-20khz, and a small dip between 1.3khz to 2khz.

SPL Horizontal Isoband graph: I feel like R3 is flatter and narrower. (110 degrees for R3 vs 121 degrees for Meta.)
SPL Vertical Isoband graph: Meta is flatter and wider. (103 degrees vs 113 degrees.)
AFAIK there is limited evidence that people tend to prefer wider dispersion patterns in stereo. To what extent, and whether it depends on the room, is not certain. In nearfield, a small posture change is a larger degree change compared to the tweeter. If both speakers are ear height, Metas are superior here.

Price: Meta wins (usually). How much it wins depends a lot on the part of the world you're in.

Size: Meta wins. R3 is simply a larger speaker. In the manual, R3 recommends 9in from the wall minimum. No such minimum is explicitly stated in Meta manual. Meta is not as a tall of a speaker, so on a desk it's harder to get it to ear level while keeping the whole thing looking nice. The wider vertical performance helps offset that though. Also to counter that fact, the R3 being bigger can simply wreck the look of a computer desk setup by being too large and throwing off the balance visually. Overall Meta is easier to set up ideally (sonically) vs R3 in nearfield computer usage.

Listening distance: Meta wins. With only the coaxial driver, you can go very close and have the drivers sum up to a coherent sound. R3 are deeper (longer) speakers than Metas by 2.2in. Metas get more freedom for moving the speaker away from the ears for coherency or away from the wall to avoid bass FR weirdness simply by being smaller. When you're at 19.5in away like me, 2.2in is over 10% of the listening distance and add that on top of R3 needing to be farther away, the difference should be noteworthy methinks.

Preference Score EQed: Tie. 8.6 vs 8.5. Olive Score has resolution of 0.5-1, and it's designed for mid to far field.

Looks: I think we're understating the importance of looks. That's a big draw of the Kef speakers when there are several other strong competitors against these two speakers if aesthetics don't matter. This is subjective, but don't forget about it! Metas play with color contrasts between the enclosure and driver like black and copper, or white and copper. There's blue and a more yellowish color with black back, and a unique dark grey with red. R3 has all glossy white, all glossy black, and walnut. The high gloss contrasts the matte styling of the Metas. Somebody earlier mentioned how they thought people had to be more careful with glossy finishes, but I don't know either way.

 

[alitomr1979]

Thanks for the input on this. Do you think a avr that’s 100watts would be sufficient. I returned my R3’s and kept my metas but I keep wondering “what if” Can’t go wrong with either, and my untrained ears couldn’t tell a difference although my Denon s760h does only provide 75watts

The reason why I am looking for a new integrated with home theater bypass or separates (I decided for the combo of Peachtree Amp500, SMSL M400, Topping Pre90 instead of the Musical Fidelity M5si) is because I am using my CXA81 to power the R3s, which are mains in my home theater. I use Roon with a Raspberry pi 4 connected to all three Marantz HDDAC1, SMSL M500 and CXA81’s USB. The Yamaha A2070 takes another input of the CXA81, and I can tell you there is something lacking even when using the CXA81 as an amp. There is not enough presence, and fewer details. It sounds ok. But when the other pairings enter the scene, you can tell immediately.

I know this is a mostly an objectivists forum and I don’t have any objective measures to back
These claims. I am just sharing my opinions hoping they can be helpful to you. My recommendation is that you hear yourself and decide. If you are in the USA practically all audio manufacturers are promoting home demos, and that means it is perfectly acceptable to order a few equipments to test the one you like the most. This long weekend has been quite revealing to me. I wasn’t expecting to like the combo I am keeping as much As I did. Not against the M5si, and the likes of Emotiva XPA-2 Gen3, monolith amp, Bluesound Node and Marantz HD DAC1.

A good starting point could be to order a CXA61 (not so expensive) and compare.

Best of luck to you and happy listening.

 

[pielover74]

The reason why I am looking for a new integrated with home theater bypass or separates (I decided for the combo of Peachtree Amp500, SMSL M400, Topping Pre90 instead of the Musical Fidelity M5si) is because I am using my CXA81 to power the R3s, which are mains in my home theater. I use Roon with a Raspberry pi 4 connected to all three Marantz HDDAC1, SMSL M500 and CXA81’s USB. The Yamaha A2070 takes another input of the CXA81, and I can tell you there is something lacking even when using the CXA81 as an amp. There is not enough presence, and fewer details. It sounds ok. But when the other pairings enter the scene, you can tell immediately.

I know this is a mostly an objectivists forum and I don’t have any objective measures to back
These claims. I am just sharing my opinions hoping they can be helpful to you. My recommendation is that you hear yourself and decide. If you are in the USA practically all audio manufacturers are promoting home demos, and that means it is perfectly acceptable to order a few equipments to test the one you like the most. This long weekend has been quite revealing to me. I wasn’t expecting to like the combo I am keeping as much As I did. Not against the M5si, and the likes of Emotiva XPA-2 Gen3, monolith amp, Bluesound Node and Marantz HD DAC1.

A good starting point could be to order a CXA61 (not so expensive) and compare.

Best of luck to you and happy listening.

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?