Robert-Hifi
Member
The KEF Q7 Meta looks really nice in walnut.
Do you also have a photo of it with the grille on?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
KEF Q Meta is Coming
- Thread starter Heric
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kef new speaker
Do you also have a photo of it with the grille on?
Thank you, Jake, I appreciate the kind words.
I will not comment on other manufacturers' practices, but I am glad that you and others here have found value in our approach. These days, the audio community has access to very high-quality data from external platforms like this one and reviewers like Erin , and so on. By sharing the data ourselves, not only do we gain credibility and transparency, but we are also able to combine it with the delivery of our technical narrative and the development story. This is the whole purpose of the white papers: to allow customers like yourself to see exactly what they are buying and, at the same time, understand what technologies are responsible for the performance propositions of the different products throughout our catalogue. This way, hopefully, you can make a more informed decision and buy 'better', which will ultimately mean that you will be happier with your purchases and continue to hold the brand in high regard and celebrate our technical achievements with us. Everybody wins!
Anyway, back to your message. You touched on a lot of things and you're largely on the right track but there are a few more things that you need to consider. Directivity contours can be presented in one of two ways - normalised and unnormalised.
Normalised Directivity Contours - The off-axis data is normalised to the response on-axis so that the colour plot can show (the ratio of) how the response changes, with respect to on-axis (0 degrees)/direct sound (in some interpretations) as you move away on either side. This is a very useful visual tool because you can very quickly see the radiation patterns in the horizontal and vertical planes and compare different designs with one another, even if they have different on-axis responses. In a normalised directivity contour, the 0 degrees response will always appear as one solid colour across all frequencies, and the delta of the colour scale on either side will be referenced to 0 degrees. This is a relative comparison, i.e. relative (aka normalised, hence the name) to the on-axis response.
Unnormalised Directivity Contours - These are useful for the same reasons as the normalised contours, but they are not normalised to 0 degrees. As a result, these are more revealing because not only do they show you how the response changes as you go off-axis, but they also show you how the response changes with frequency at 0 degrees itself. Due to this, 0 degrees will not always be the same solid colour. Therefore, as you look at the off-axis responses in certain frequency ranges, you have to make a mental note of 'where' they started at 0 degrees. The caveat is that this approach can make it a little tricky to compare contours across different products. You can think of this as an absolute comparison, i.e. the off-axis contours are shown as true SPLs rather than relative SPLs to the 0 degrees response.
The directivity contours that we publish are all unnormalised. This way, you get a closer look at how the responses change with angles and frequencies (even at 0 degrees), but you need to exercise extra caution when comparing two different contours. Also, remember, the contours only show the radiation patterns along the vertical and horizontal planes. However, in a small rooms (most domestic listening spaces), and for point source designs like the ones we have with the Uni-Q driver arrays, the sound propagates as a spherical wave over all angles, beyond these two planes alone. Therefore, they only show a part of the full picture.
A better and more accurate way of comparing the overall directivity of two speakers is to look at their directivity index. The clue is in the name: DI is a frequency-dependent metric calculated as a difference between the on-axis curve and some type of average of off-axis curves. There are two popular averages: the early reflections average and the acoustic power average. Of the two, the acoustic power average is the most relevant metric in this context as it is an average of the sound radiated in all directions all the way around the speaker (over the full sphere). The acoustic power DI (difference between on-axis and acoustic power average) shows how the radiation pattern narrows with frequency. The higher the DI, the narrower the radiation pattern of the speaker, and a DI of 0dB indicates omni-directional radiation, typically only achieved at very low frequencies. (If you are interested in further details, I recommend reading Chapter 5 of Floyd Toole's book - Sound Reproduction 3rd Edition).
With that in mind, here is a comparison of the Acoustic Power DI of the Q4 Meta against the Q Concerto Meta.
They are not too dissimilar because they both have roughly the same radiation pattern (directivity) as determined by the Uni-Q and the design of the crossovers rather than the system topology. The fact that one is a 2-way and the other is a 3-way has very little to do with how their radiation patterns change with frequency. This is primarily down to the matched directivity of the Uni-Q driver array and our crossover design goal of maintaining the smoothness of the power averages as much as possible across all frequencies. Once again, further details are available in the Q series with MAT whitepaper, but the point I want to emphasise is that comparing unnormalised directivity contours can lead to incorrect conclusions if you are not careful.
Now, just because the Q4 Meta and Q Concerto Meta have similar acoustic power DIs, does that mean they will sound the same in-room? Or, in other words, if you took the Q Concerto Meta and put it on a wall, would it sound better than Q4 Meta because of it being a more superior speaker (3-way design, deeper extension, lower distortion and so on)?
The answer to both of those questions is: NO
Why? Because their power responses (and by extension in-room responses) are different.
Here's a comparison. (Q4 Meta curves scaled down 1dB to account for sensitivity differences).
There are two differences here that I want to highlight:
1. LF extension and alignment: Being a free-standing speaker, Q Concerto Meta is expected to have relatively lower room (and boundary) gain than the on-wall Q4 Meta. As a result, the Q Concerto Meta has deeper bass extension already included in the design - thanks to the volume of the cabinet and a dedicated, larger, LF driver. Similarly, the Q4 Meta has a more extended low shelf in it's LF alignment to ensure that the extra room reinforcement does not result in a peaky bass response.
2. Power Average Slope: Building on point 1, due to the higher room gain expected from the on-wall mounting of the Q4 Meta, the LF response in-room will be more boosted than the Q Concerto Meta. This can make the Q4M sound too warm or dark, affecting its clarity and tonality. To balance this, we opted for a lower slope (or higher level) in the acoustic power average. This way, the extra bass reinforcement is balanced by proportionately higher amounts of mids and highs too, thus maintaining a neutral balance.
Okay, wrapping up - here are a few further things that I want to share.
1. The Q4 Meta responses are actually measured in the anechoic chamber, so in free-field or 4pi rather than in half-space or 2pi. The reason for this is to ensure consistency among the data that is published and show readers just the performance of the speaker in a familiar, standardised format, independent of the nuances of the mounting conditions.
2. There is no such thing as a movie speaker or a music speaker. A well-engineered speaker is a well-engineered speaker, no matter what you do with it. In fact, if it is engineered well enough, you can do whatever you like with it and it will continue to deliver exceptional performance. This is our goal.
Apologies for the rather long post, but I hope you and the rest of the readers find this helpful and keep the points raised in mind to better interpret loudspeaker measurement data in the future.
Finally, noted on the point regarding uploading the data on spinorama.org. We absolutely see the value this can bring to the customers and are happy to do it for that reason. I will release the data next week and post an update once it is available to view on their platform.
Cheers!
Last edited:
Jost Buergi
Member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2024
- Messages
- 21
- Likes
- 20
@pthakkar24 : nominated for Post of the Year award! 
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 3,040
- Likes
- 3,230
For years, I have been using a quite veteran set of IQ speakers along with a couple of PSW 2500's for gaming and music.
Games that rely a lot on direccional sounds such as what I am playing right now, Stalker 2, are an absolute delight to be played in a multichannel system.
The fact that after two decades these KEF oldies still perform well is a testament to good manufacturing practices.
This is definitely something I didn't know. It looks like the directivity contours that Amir publishes are normalised so I'm not used to looking at the unnormalised ones in your white paper. Hopefully I'm still right in thinking that the Q4 Meta on-wall does have a broader beam due to the wider front baffle and lack of the deep waveguide, but I'm not so sure about that now. Would I be right in thinking that the on-wall speaker would be designed to sound better off-axis? This is the sort of detail that makes me want to read an expert opinion on these measurements instead of trying to interpret them myself.
Yes. My conclusions could well be incorrect as I'm no expert!
I don't really get the directivity index graph at this point, I only really know that smoother is better. The main differences I can see are that the on-wall has a dip between 1k and 2k, matching a dip in it's overall response curve and that the concerto has a small hump there and rolls off above 15k. I know I can't hear much above 15k so that probably doesn't matter. The difference around 1.5k looks like around 3db so will that be audible? With that 1k to 2k dip in directivity index corresponding to a dip in frequency response in the Q4 on-wall, should an attempt be made to EQ that out or is this something that has been designed into the crossover because it sounds better and shouldn't be corrected as that will sound worse?
I'm more interested in a (half-space or 2pi?) measurement that represents the on-wall response as that's how they are intended to be used. Would it be possible to publish that? Can in be interpolated from the existing data? Alternatively is it possible to predict the boost (wall reinforcement?) from on-wall mounting and overlay or sum that with the predicted in-room response graph?
Yes. On-wall speakers are normally overlooked for listening to music but I'm coming to the conclusion that they can be better for music than a bookshelf speaker on a bookshelf, mantlepiece, sat on a sideboard or other cupboard or mounted on a wall bracket. I mention this as that's how many, probably most people will use them instead of on stands well away from the wall. If you're buying concertos to use on stands though you're probably better off buying floorstanders such as the Q7 metas at approximately the same cost at 1399 as Concertos plus SQ1 stands at 1099+275/pair.
I had some bookshelf speakers on a cupboard in my bedroom and they sounded very boxy and not as good as some smaller satellite speakers (designed for wall mounting) which I had on a windowsill in the kitchen. I've mounted some Adam K8Vs on wall brackets in another room to upgrade from Dali on-walls and the sound is much more variable as you move around the room compared to the on-wall speakers which are designed to be heard off-axis.
I look forward to seeing the data on spinorama. Thanks for such an informative and detailed reply. On a weekend as well, which I wouldn't expect. You're a credit to these forums and your company!
Last edited:
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,348
- Likes
- 18,902
Unfortunately not yet as I have stored the box with the grille already away but I hope to remember to make one for you when the 2nd loudspeaker arrives (there was a problem with KEF EU warehouse).
So I finally got around to checking out the new Q series and they were about as expected. Definitely sound good and refined, slightly better cabinet bracing and I think a solid speaker for most people. I was focusing on the point source capabilities compared to the LS50 Meta they had and they are about the same as the R series in that regard. The Q11 specifically are like a wall of sound but I prefer the point source presentation of the LS50
extrachange
Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2024
- Messages
- 7
- Likes
- 18
Seems I got the chance to be the first
, here's my Q1 Meta and Concerto with grill on. Fairly vintage looking in that walnut finish, but I like it.Attachments
Last edited:
..looks absolutly decent, thx for this!Seems I got the chance to be the first
Vindermere
Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2020
- Messages
- 40
- Likes
- 31
I listen the concerto meta in store, the vinyl satin black, the grills and binding posts are low quality for a speaker of this price. Wharfedale and Monitor audio do better in the same prices. However, these speakers are excellent, low end, clarity and precision are remarkable.
An interesting view below of the q3 meta from inside and differences with the Q350
An interesting view below of the q3 meta from inside and differences with the Q350
Last edited:
I had been about to buy a pair of Q150s for nearfield use on my desk, but I'm actually now considering the Q1 Meta.
Looking at KEF's white paper for the Q Meta series, their provided measurements for the Q3 Meta match very closely to Erin's. Meanwhile, comparing Erin's Q150 measurement to KEF's Q1 measurement in the white paper, the Q1 looks like it could actually be a bit of an improvement (DI and FR look a bit smoother). Hopefully either Erin or Amir will measure it at some point.
Of course, whether any improvement is worth nearly double the price, especially once you factor in EQ, is another question.
Looking at KEF's white paper for the Q Meta series, their provided measurements for the Q3 Meta match very closely to Erin's. Meanwhile, comparing Erin's Q150 measurement to KEF's Q1 measurement in the white paper, the Q1 looks like it could actually be a bit of an improvement (DI and FR look a bit smoother). Hopefully either Erin or Amir will measure it at some point.
Of course, whether any improvement is worth nearly double the price, especially once you factor in EQ, is another question.
Last edited:
No_hair_left
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2023
- Messages
- 46
- Likes
- 4
Is this for the q4 meta? no reviews or measurements anywhere for it and I'm waiting to see if I could pair it with an r2 meta for l/r duties.
I really need Erin to review the Q11 Meta I think I want a set of! Andrew Robinson's basic measurements look good but Erin goes a lot farther. Andrew says the Q11 Meta has more impact in the bass than R11 Meta, which is surprising. He says the R has more focused imaging of vocalists and instruments, but the Q11 Meta has better bass articulation. But the price difference is quite significant.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,348
- Likes
- 18,902
Now that finally the second arrived I made a photo for you, I apologise for the poor light in my room currently:
Robert-Hifi
Member
Thanks! Walnut clearly looks the best of all three finishes.
thewas
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,348
- Likes
- 18,902
Since I have now the complete pair here are some comparison measurements and a preliminary subjective assessment to their sound.
I am comparing them to a pair of B&W CM7 which I also had bought new almost 20 years ago and enjoyed quite despite their not fully neutral tuning, as their voicing and low distortion drivers was making them listenable for long time without fatigue. Their new price 20 years ago was similar to the Q7 Meta current price but prices have risen since then significantly and it belongs to B&Ws mid series which is more comparable to the KEF R series. a current successor of it (704 S3) costs double and the same with a comparable R5 Meta. The different price class can be seen at the finish of the enclosures which on the mid series have real paint or veneers while it is wrap on the lower ones.
Harmonic distortion at a quite high SPL (more then 90 dB at 2 meters), first always the KEF and second the B&W:
The B&W still does quite well even compared to today's standards in the mid and treble but the KEF beats is hand down in the bass staying exceptionally clean with very low odd harmonics which are the most audible ones and is attributed to its dual woofers which are also optimised as seen in the corresponding white paper.
Here in direct comparison the 3rd harmonic:
B&W's quite larger FST mid driver does a bit better but both at an excellent and not audible region.
Some multitone distortions of both:
A higher modulation in the upper bass and lower mids of the B&W is clearly recognisable.
And finally, a listening position MMM measurement comparison of the loudspeakers placed at the same position, normalised to the average sound pressure level in the mid-range for better optical comparison as the KEF have higher sensitivity:
The B&W show their typical presence dip which if removed by EQ sounds shouty due to their directivity mismatch (which is also a proof that like Toole says equalising listening position measurements to some predefined targets doesn't guarantee anything in terms of sound quality), the KEF show a stronger, deeper bass and textbook smooth response above the modal region, here also compared to the Harman "trained listeners preference curve":
Some hours of listening shows that the KEF can use quite some amplification power. The Rotel A11 Tribute I use currently as my large Yamaha is broken with its 2x101 W at 4 Ohm could bring the B&W to a limit where they start to sound less clear despite their lower sensitivity, while with the KEF I can turn it up to a level where they still sound clean but the amplifier goes into thermal protection mode. Their tonal tuning is as expected from the white paper and my own listening position measurements smooth and quite neutral reminding a bit of the Neumann KH310 I used to test many years ago and not needing any EQ except for a couple of room modes below 400 Hz. Comparing the directivities of the Q Concerto Meta which has the same Uni-Q since the Q7 Meta isn't included yet at spinorama.org they seem surprisingly similar (with only difference the lack of crossover discontiunity due to coaxial implementation), but it can be also a coincidence as the KEF has also a more warm on-axis tuning:
What impressed me most though for now compared to the B&W which I always found quite well imaging and that despite me owning both LS50 and LS50 Meta since they were released is their in depth layered imaging which makes me notice more some sounds and details which I was probably hearing also before now it is easier for me since they have clearer "outlines" to the other sounds. Of course this could be also a sighted bias but if true I would guess it is attributed to the closer to point source and less drivers/phase overlap compared to the B&W but I will do more listening the coming weeks and report again. That is all for now, hope it didn't get too long or boring.
MAB
Major Contributor
Great test, love these new models from KEF.
I love the contrast with your old B&W. And your comments on the directivities of the KEF vs. B&W are helpful.
I just heard the Q11 at the local shop at a KEF event last week. It was fun talking to KEF's rep (not wearing name tags, so I didn't get the name!)
Thought I would share my recent experience in this thread, not sure if it's appreciated but I'll give it a go (new to the forum )
I had KEF Q Concerto Meta at home for testing for a couple of days. Had Genelec 8030A also at the time. Did A/B with a switch and volume adjusted to be the same for each. Used different low-cut values to put them nn equal footing for the bass extension. Even tried doing EQ to lift the much duller treble (-4 db or something like that) of the KEF to match better, but couldn't do it with a simple switch so evaluation of that was a bit difficult. In the end, I felt 8030A won out in my environment. I do have significant absorption and not so many reflections, therefore the benefits of KEF's directivity didn't get to shine. In a more reflective room, I may well have chosen the KEF's.
I did listen in-store to the Concerto as well as R3 Meta and Genelec G three A (8030B). That was a moderately reflective environment, and the KEF speakers clearly did their thing spreading a nice and broad (but diffuse) soundstage, also in the vertical direction. If that is your thing, and your environment, these are some really nice speakers.
Still, I have fallen in love with these KEF speakers of the latest generation, and have been looking for an excuse to get a pair. For the bedroom maybe? I do think they should have a reflective environment to shine properly, if not there are options with better value.
)I had KEF Q Concerto Meta at home for testing for a couple of days. Had Genelec 8030A also at the time. Did A/B with a switch and volume adjusted to be the same for each. Used different low-cut values to put them nn equal footing for the bass extension. Even tried doing EQ to lift the much duller treble (-4 db or something like that) of the KEF to match better, but couldn't do it with a simple switch so evaluation of that was a bit difficult. In the end, I felt 8030A won out in my environment. I do have significant absorption and not so many reflections, therefore the benefits of KEF's directivity didn't get to shine. In a more reflective room, I may well have chosen the KEF's.
I did listen in-store to the Concerto as well as R3 Meta and Genelec G three A (8030B). That was a moderately reflective environment, and the KEF speakers clearly did their thing spreading a nice and broad (but diffuse) soundstage, also in the vertical direction. If that is your thing, and your environment, these are some really nice speakers.
Still, I have fallen in love with these KEF speakers of the latest generation, and have been looking for an excuse to get a pair. For the bedroom maybe?
I do think they should have a reflective environment to shine properly, if not there are options with better value.
Lol, I just watched that video and he basically un-sold me on a set of the Q11 Meta towers(which I am assuming will use the same concentric tweeter/mid driver as the Q Concerto) because of his comments about their falling high frequency response and their use in a larger, more open room like my family room. But I really need Erin to review the Q11 Meta because perhaps they will perform differently in the high end than the Q Concerto.