KEF Q Meta is Coming

[billou5767]

Reviewer says: neutral, voices sound natural, deep and clean bass. Good overall but no comparisons given with, say, other speakers of this price range or R3 Meta etc.

According to the measurements (as I read them): low sensitivity, low distortions, directivity well controlled, higher frequencies start to roll off above 1 kHz.

this q series look like the new intel processor

 

[Steve Dallas]

Erin has his review of the Q3 Meta up. I was hoping for better performance all around.

KEF Q3 META Bookshelf Speaker Review

KEF Q3 META

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

 

[Beave]

Erin has his review of the Q3 Meta up. I was hoping for better performance all around.

KEF Q3 META Bookshelf Speaker Review

KEF Q3 META

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

That's what the the last three pages of this thread have been about! Video has been out for over a week.

 

[Steve Dallas]

That's what the the last three pages of this thread have been about! Video has been out for over a week.

I just saw it hit his site today and did not read back that far in the thread. I guess you are in the know if you are on his Patreon. Sorry!

 

[ucmike11]

I'm definitely interested in the Q Concerto, Q7 and Q6 but I find it odd that there has been not much in the way of reviews, or even personal anecdotes from people who have bought/listened to the speakers. Is everyone just waiting to jump until Erin/Amir reviews it?

 

[quattro98]

I'm looking forward to the measurements/white paper from KEF. Those have been consistent with measured reviews of prior speakers. The amount of time and effort Amir and Erin put into their reviews is astounding.

 

[AncientMariner]

I'm looking forward to the measurements/white paper from KEF. Those have been consistent with measured reviews of prior speakers. The amount of time and effort Amir and Erin put into their reviews is astounding.

KEF sadly didn't release measurements for the previous Q series. There is already an information sheet, same style as for the old series. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

I even enquired their support for measurements but never got a reply. I would otherwise have liked to see measurements for their Q950, which is their only 8 inch Uni-Q driver.

Perhaps marketing strategy is only to do so for their higher end speakers.

 

[Haint]

KEF sadly didn't release measurements for the previous Q series. There is already an information sheet, same style as for the old series. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

I even enquired their support for measurements but never got a reply. I would otherwise have liked to see measurements for their Q950, which is their only 8 inch Uni-Q driver.

Perhaps marketing strategy is only to do so for their higher end speakers.

Absolutely, those measurements certainly aren't going to sell units. There are much better measuring speakers around the same price, and similar measuring ones for much cheaper.

 

[AncientMariner]

Absolutely, those measurements certainly aren't going to sell units. There are much better measuring speakers around the same price, and similar measuring ones for much cheaper.

What measures better under 400 eurodollars a pair, than the Q350 that it currently sells for? Even the new Q3 at the full price I'd be curious what measures better in the $700 price bracket - especially in directivity (frequency response can be remedied, especially with good directivity).

Which other $700 pair of speakers has this:

 

[Haint]

What measures better under 400 eurodollars a pair, than the Q350 that it currently sells for? Even the new Q3 at the full price I'd be curious what measures better in the $700 price bracket - especially in directivity (frequency response can be remedied, especially with good directivity).

Which other $700 pair of speakers has this:

I wasn't speaking to closeout pricing on discontinued models, which is obviously short lived on a limited basis. The Q3 is $800 US, which just off the top of my head, is significantly more than B&M dealers will move Revel M16's for, more than the DBR62, and is in the same price bracket as the Sierra 1 V2--all of which I would choose over Q3 Meta's.

 

[Beave]

What measures better under 400 eurodollars a pair, than the Q350 that it currently sells for? Even the new Q3 at the full price I'd be curious what measures better in the $700 price bracket - especially in directivity (frequency response can be remedied, especially with good directivity).

Which other $700 pair of speakers has this:

In the plot, notice the two rather large port resonances right around 1kHz. You see them as big dips in the on-axis response and as big peaks in the far off-axis response.

 

[AncientMariner]

In the plot, notice the two rather large port resonances right around 1kHz. You see them as big dips in the on-axis response and as big peaks in the far off-axis response.

It's inaudible because of the narrow bandwidth:

Critical band - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever room you put the speakers in, is going to have a far bigger impact, and create far bigger and wider peaks and dips and cause audible changes to the tonality. To correct this you need EQ regardless of speaker.

These speakers (I treat Q350 and Q3 Meta as the same, because they basically are besides the marketing), only have 2 problems (considering the price range), they can't play that loud (may or may not be a problem), and the vinyl finish screams low cost (which objectively even $800 is, certainly 400).

I wasn't speaking to closeout pricing on discontinued models, which is obviously short lived on a limited basis. The Q3 is $800 US, which just off the top of my head, is significantly more than B&M dealers will move Revel M16's for, more than the DBR62, and is in the same price bracket as the Sierra 1 V2--all of which I would choose over Q3 Meta's.

When the Q350 is sold out, the Q3 Meta will start to be discounted for $500. For anyone in the market, buy either one, whichever is the cheapest and put the money saved toward EQ. It's basically the same speaker. Meanwhile you are happy to buy a 5+ year old speaker?

Can't say I heard the Revel. I can't even find them online in the EU, but they are $1000 bucks at Crutchfield for 5+ year old model, so compare is with Q350 for $400. Then look at the measurements here, and pay particularly interest in all the red comments.

Revel M16 Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel M16 stand-mount/bookshelf speaker. I purchased this through my company and it arrived a few days ago. Can't tell you my cost :), but retail price is US $900 (sold $450 each). As you can expect, when you pay more, you do get more as far...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Now, I know you will bring up the happy Panther and praise from Amirm. I don't pay attention to that. It's subjective opinion, the data is not. I read Amirm's review of the Q350 before buying them (for €356 for a par), and he didn't like them. Objectively, their measurements are better or at the very least on par with these. Also, the Q350 will take better to EQ than the Revel due to the coaxial drivers. Both will need EQ, because every speaker does once you put it in a room.

Edit: Had to add a meme




Coaxial is just superior:

Just to make clear, in no way am I saying this is the best speaker in the world. What I'm say it's a hell of a bargin for $400. If mine broke today and all of sudden only Q3 Meta were available, and assuming I didn't want something better (read probably much higher price), and I was forced to make a decision right now, I probably get the Q3 Meta instead (never buy during the hype at MSRP if you can avoid, they will be 599 in 6 months). But the Revel are 5 year old at still 1k bucks (what was their MSRP by the way, Revel doesn't mention on their site.

DBR62 is the same story, but at least closer to the averaged price of the Q350 and Q3 Meta (don't fall for the meta marketing, get the cheapest ones). The DBR62 look pretty good though for 600 Eurodollars, I'm not saying it's a bad speaker. I would still pick the Q350 or Q3 Meta because I don't see a reason not to. Personally, I put a lot of emphasis on crystal clear imagining and enjoy a lot of music that has spatial effects. I doubt the Elac would come even close to the Q350 or Q3 Meta. I can see why some people would prefer the DBR62 for other reason though, such as they look a lot nicer.

 

[billou5767]

It's inaudible because of the narrow bandwidth:

Critical band - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever room you put the speakers in, it going to have a far bigger impact, and create far bigger and wider peaks and dips and cause audible changes to the tonality. To correct this you need EQ regardless of speaker.

These speakers (I treat Q350 and Q3 Meta as the same, because they basically are besides the marketing), only have 2 problems, they can't play that loud (may or may not be a problem), and the vinyl finish screams low cost (which objectively even $800 is, certainly 400).



When the Q350 is sold out, the Q3 Meta will start to be discounted for $500. For anyone in the market, buy either one, whichever is the cheapest and put the money saved toward EQ. It's basically the same speaker. Meanwhile you are happy to buy a 5+ year old speaker?

Can't say I heard the Revel. I can't even find them online in the EU, but they are $1000 bucks at Crutchfield for 5+ year old model, so compare is with Q350 for $400. Then look at the measurements here, and pay particularly interest in all the red comments.

Revel M16 Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel M16 stand-mount/bookshelf speaker. I purchased this through my company and it arrived a few days ago. Can't tell you my cost :), but retail price is US $900 (sold $450 each). As you can expect, when you pay more, you do get more as far...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Now, I know you will bring up the happy Panther and praise from Amirm. I don't pay attention to that. It's subjective opinion, the data is not. I read Amirm's review of the Q350 before buying them (for €356 for a par), and he didn't like them. Objectively, their measurements are better or at the very least on par with these. Also, the Q350 will take better to EQ than the Revel due to the coaxial drivers. Both will need EQ, because every speaker does once you put it in a room.

View attachment 399462


Coaxial is just superior:

View attachment 399465


Just to make clear, in no way am I saying this is the best speaker in the world. What I'm say it's a hell of a bargin for $400. If mine broke today and all of sudden only Q3 Meta were available, and assuming I didn't want something better (read probably much higher price), and I was forced to make a decision right now, I probably get the Q3 Meta instead (never buy during the hype at MSRP if you can avoid, they will by 599 in 6 months). But the Revel are 5 year old at still 1k bucks (what was their MSRP by the way, Revel doesn't metion on their site.

DBR62 is the same story, but at least closer to the averaged price of the Q350 and Q3 Meta (don't fall for the meta marketing, get the cheapest ones). The DBR62 look pretty good though for 600 Eurodollars, I'm not saying it's a bad speaker. I would still pick the Q350 or Q3 Meta because I don't see a reason not to. Personally, I put a lot of emphasis on crystal clear imagining and enjoy a lot of music that has spatial effects. I doubt the Elac would come even close to the Q350 or Q3 Meta. I can see why some people would prefer the DBR62 for other reason though, such as they look a lot nicer.

when every phrase you speak money there is a problem
its good or no good
it can be better but cost a lot of money

the price i buy 14/09/2018 was 476 euro at start , same shop today its 559 euro but with speaker protection

they a less expensive today ... ( on summer sale before covid see them at 250 / 300 )

they are good speaker , the compact size is interesting , the uniq too , but need power amp

some like mercedes other bmw

but for all day use , for normal use its okay

yes the quality control is shit my 1st pair have glue mark ( what i see on photo on some meta new Q ...... ) the vinyl is cheap but 6 years now when you put them and dont touch them they have dirty on ( no protection speaker ) but like knew

a lot of people forget what amir say : numbers its 70 % of feel they forget the other 30 %

and technicaly 99% of people have room different and hif amp different

fight for number is .... if they look good , good price and not enormous flaw , you like it .. gooooooo

 

[AncientMariner]

when every phrase you speak money there is a problem
its good or no good
it can be better but cost a lot of money

The Q350 are good. They need EQ (every speaker does when you put it in a room), or you're giving up on something.

Mine are unbearable to listen to in the room I placed them because I have a very strong room mode at 50Hz. That's not the fault of the speaker.
With the room mode corrected, I still find them too warm due to the bass hump reaching up to 300Hz. Now that we need and have EQ anyway, this is easy to correct.

So yes, they are good with EQ.

yes the quality control is shit my 1st pair have glue mark ( what i see on photo on some meta new Q ...... ) the vinyl is cheap but 6 years now when you put them and dont touch them they have dirty on ( no protection speaker ) but like knew

What do you mean with speaker protection? I thought you meant some kind of insurance at first. Is it a wrap or something?

In 6 years, these speakers will likely be in my garage or something, so I don't worry much about how they age. Again this is the benefit of low price.

a lot of people forget what amir say : numbers its 70 % of feel they forget the other 30 %

Yes, and the other 30% is not related to sound, but looks etc. which might influence the perception. People may react differently to the less appealing looks. For me, I enjoy looking at them, because it amazes me how something that looks so cheap can produce such good sound.

fight for number is .... if they look good , good price and not enormous flaw , you like it .. gooooooo

I somewhat agree, but it wasn't me who started with measurements. Anecdotally, my brother bought some old used Jamo speakers, they are very V-shaped, and I liked them a lot at lower listening volumes. I did some measurements for him, and when I came home and looked at the frequency response, it was near identical to my otherwise flat EQ'ed speakers with the loudness filter I use at lower listening levels applied.

So measurements don't tell the whole story (but then again they somewhat do ).

 

[billou5767]

The Q350 are good. They need EQ (every speaker does when you put it in a room), or you're giving up on something.

Mine are unbearable to listen to in the room I placed them because I have a very strong room mode at 50Hz. That's not the fault of the speaker.
With the room mode corrected, I still find them too warm due to the bass hump reaching up to 300Hz. Now that we need and have EQ anyway, this is easy to correct.

So yes, they are good with EQ.



What do you mean with speaker protection? I thought you meant some kind of insurance at first. Is it a wrap or something?

In 6 years, these speakers will likely be in my garage or something, so I don't worry much about how they age. Again this is the benefit of low price.



Yes, and the other 30% is not related to sound, but looks etc. which might influence the perception. People may react differently to the less appealing looks. For me, I enjoy looking at them, because it amazes me how something that looks so cheap can produce such good sound.



I somewhat agree, but it wasn't me who started with measurements. Anecdotally, my brother bought some old used Jamo speakers, they are very V-shaped, and I liked them a lot at lower listening volumes. I did some measurements for him, and when I came home and looked at the frequency response, it was near identical to my otherwise flat EQ'ed speakers with the loudness filter I use at lower listening levels applied.

So measurements don't tell the whole story (but then again they somewhat do ).

speaker protection : a panel in front the speaker

1st version of Q serie its was an option 30 /40 e, its include know

the old jamo was very good for price , the serie now dont look good , its shame who good there was i have one with 300 /350 mm speaker destroy by humidity

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

@AOR
To save some money, I’m considering getting a pair of Q Concerto Meta instead of the R3 Meta for the side surrounds in my 5.2.2 setup, which will complement my R5 Meta front channels and R8 Meta up-firing Atmos speakers sitting on top of the R5s.

Given the new 3-way design, hybrid bass driver, refined crossover, and Shadow Flare features in the Concerto Meta, do you all think this would be a good move? Maybe the Uni-Q driver and MAT in the Concerto Meta would align it more closely with the R Series sound signature? If not fully aligned, maybe my DLBC-capable AVR would help smooth out the differences between the Q Concerto and R Series speakers in this setup?

But then, maybe when listening to Atmos music. the differences between the Q Concerto and R series front channels would become obvious?

 

[Rednaxela]

Have you considered a S/H pair of R3 non-meta’s? I bet that would give your AVR a much smaller difference to smooth out.

 

[AudioScience Enthusiast]

Have you considered a S/H pair of R3 non-meta’s? I bet that would give your AVR a much smaller difference to smooth out.

Yes, I have considered R3 Non-meta, which is a great alternative, but unfortunately no dealers in my area carry them and hard to find s/h in piano black too, that's why I'm looking at Concerto as the next best option.

 

[Haint]

It's inaudible because of the narrow bandwidth:

Critical band - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whatever room you put the speakers in, is going to have a far bigger impact, and create far bigger and wider peaks and dips and cause audible changes to the tonality. To correct this you need EQ regardless of speaker.

These speakers (I treat Q350 and Q3 Meta as the same, because they basically are besides the marketing), only have 2 problems (considering the price range), they can't play that loud (may or may not be a problem), and the vinyl finish screams low cost (which objectively even $800 is, certainly 400).



When the Q350 is sold out, the Q3 Meta will start to be discounted for $500. For anyone in the market, buy either one, whichever is the cheapest and put the money saved toward EQ. It's basically the same speaker. Meanwhile you are happy to buy a 5+ year old speaker?

Can't say I heard the Revel. I can't even find them online in the EU, but they are $1000 bucks at Crutchfield for 5+ year old model, so compare is with Q350 for $400. Then look at the measurements here, and pay particularly interest in all the red comments.

Revel M16 Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Revel M16 stand-mount/bookshelf speaker. I purchased this through my company and it arrived a few days ago. Can't tell you my cost :), but retail price is US $900 (sold $450 each). As you can expect, when you pay more, you do get more as far...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Now, I know you will bring up the happy Panther and praise from Amirm. I don't pay attention to that. It's subjective opinion, the data is not. I read Amirm's review of the Q350 before buying them (for €356 for a par), and he didn't like them. Objectively, their measurements are better or at the very least on par with these. Also, the Q350 will take better to EQ than the Revel due to the coaxial drivers. Both will need EQ, because every speaker does once you put it in a room.

View attachment 399462
Edit: Had to add a meme
View attachment 399474



Coaxial is just superior:

View attachment 399465


Just to make clear, in no way am I saying this is the best speaker in the world. What I'm say it's a hell of a bargin for $400. If mine broke today and all of sudden only Q3 Meta were available, and assuming I didn't want something better (read probably much higher price), and I was forced to make a decision right now, I probably get the Q3 Meta instead (never buy during the hype at MSRP if you can avoid, they will be 599 in 6 months). But the Revel are 5 year old at still 1k bucks (what was their MSRP by the way, Revel doesn't mention on their site.

DBR62 is the same story, but at least closer to the averaged price of the Q350 and Q3 Meta (don't fall for the meta marketing, get the cheapest ones). The DBR62 look pretty good though for 600 Eurodollars, I'm not saying it's a bad speaker. I would still pick the Q350 or Q3 Meta because I don't see a reason not to. Personally, I put a lot of emphasis on crystal clear imagining and enjoy a lot of music that has spatial effects. I doubt the Elac would come even close to the Q350 or Q3 Meta. I can see why some people would prefer the DBR62 for other reason though, such as they look a lot nicer.

Vertical dispersion isn't a meaningful factor unless your stands/seating places you well off the tweeter axis, or you're frequently listening while standing/walking around the room at a close high angle distance. Which may be true in some unique scenarios, but is generally not true for most people's HiFi/HT use. If you want to point to a graph besides the spin to try and argue one speaker is probably better than another, VD certainly ain't it. The EIR is a much more valuable metric in determining a potential subjective preference.

And again, my comment wasn't directed at the Q350s, it was directed at the topic of thread, the Q3 Meta's, which are by pretty much every metric a worse measuring speaker than the Q350s. That broad nastiness spanning ~400Hz to 2Khz is absolutely going to be very audible Vs. a better measuring speaker, and is why you won't see them publishing official whitepaper measurements.

 

[AncientMariner]

Vertical dispersion isn't a meaningful factor

The off axis vertical sound is going to reflect off the ceiling and the floor and go back in you face, isn't it? Enough for Amirm to recommend to have thick carpets and ceiling absorber. If it's a real problem or not I'm not going to judge. Most people probably don't treat their rooms, so why not skip potential issues? And if someone spend a lot of time and effort treating their room, are they going to put $1000 speaker into it?

Anyway, I asked if there was a better measuring speaker for the same price. And the Revel has more potential issues than the Q350. (And it's more expensive too).

The Q350 has excellent directivity so it can be EQ'ed to your hearts content (besides the tiny dip at 950Hz which some people suggested is cabinet diffraction). If the resonances around 700Hz and 1200Hz bothers you they can simply be pulled down. Compare the Q350 to this specific example that Floyd Toole mentions here. The issues are basically the same:

(1 hour 1 min 35 seconds it the timestap doesn't work)

And you can boost the dip at 3500Hz, and pull out a bit at 200Hz, because the directivity is linear at all those issue spots too. Essentially, you end up with something equivalent to a set of Neumann KH120 II, or as Floyd Toole says 1 min after the time stap: "a super good loudspeaker".

For: $400 speakers, and e.g. $225 Fosi V3 mono amps, $75 for some SMSL DAC, and $100 for a Raspberry Pi . That's a total of just $800. Or instead of the SMSL DAC, an audio interface (for an additional $50-100) that will allow you connect a couple of subwoofers. (Or something Wiim if a Pi is too intimidating)

Now, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. If one were to think the Revels are better or don't want to go through the trouble of EQ'ing, then I'm sure they are good value speakers too (not EQ'ing below 500Hz is leaving a lot on the table though). So in my opinion it's just not as good value as the KEF Q350, and I have yet to see examples of any speaker that surpass them so far in this price bracket, that the data say will allow you to manipulate them and shape the sound to this degree.

If you think this is the wrong approach, that's fine. But since there is e.g. a 72 page active thread on the Neumann KH120 II, you might find you're in the minority here.

Rather than attempting to convince anyone, I just want to propose this solution to other readers who would be open to the suggestion. I brough the Q350 specifically for those qualities because I wanted to experiment with this route, and can confirm they sound excellent.

And again, my comment wasn't directed at the Q350s, it was directed at the topic of thread, the Q3 Meta's, which are by pretty much every metric a worse measuring speaker than the Q350s. That broad nastiness spanning ~400Hz to 2Khz is absolutely going to be very audible Vs. a better measuring speaker

They measure basically the same:

KEF Q Meta is Coming

its proof data and curve its not real life they are better than the old old was good better than good :p for the less expensive kef series its good The non-meta actually has somewhat better midrange distortion performance, which is out of the ordinary for meta vs no.

www.audiosciencereview.com

As I wrote:
They Q3 Meta is a little flatter from 2500Hz (perhaps due to the absorber), but this is nothing you can't fix on the Q350. The nastiness at 700 and 1200Hz can be fixed, and if don't want to take my word for it, you can take Floyd Toole's instead in the video I linked. When doing room EQ upto 4-500Hz, so it not really a big issue to add 2 more bands for the resonances and a couple more to flatten the treble.

If they differ slightly in other parameters than frequency response (Amirm vs Erin measurements), could it reasonably be assumed that it might just as well be attributed to settings of their Klippel scanner, or unit variance in those speakers in general?

and is why you won't see them publishing official whitepaper measurements.

Or maybe they are just not targeted at this segment of whitepaper readers, and they don't want to provide info that the target group won't understand?

After all, KEF did send the speakers to voluntarily to Erin for review, so they know those that want the data will indeed get their hands on it. Erin reviewed the speakers favourably, and explained the data in a way that is pretty much in alignment with what I've written above. Perhaps KEF marketing finds it more beneficial to have someone unpartial explain the data, rather than just handing out a white paper people might misinterpret?

Anyway, that's the last I will say about the Q3 Meta. I'm more curious to see the Q Concerto data. The Q3 Meta is just more of the Q350 (which is not a bad thing).