KEF Q Meta is Coming

[palm]

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.

The CM7 were really pretty speakers in my opinion. I remember listening to them in a fancy shop and I liked them more than others speakers on demo that day. I think I had Mission m52 at home back then.
Those new Q7 seem to be excellent speakers !

 

[thewas]

The CM7 were really pretty speakers in my opinion. I remember listening to them in a fancy shop and I liked them more than others speakers on demo that day. I think I had Mission m52 at home back then.
Those new Q7 seem to be excellent speakers !

Yes, they were nice looking and sounding loudspeakers, they were just picked up by their new owner, I will miss them.

 

[scotchrocks]

I recently picked up a pair of Q4s and 2 pairs of Q8s to act as surround and height channels in my theater room. I had originally been looking for Revel on wall speakers to match my Revel front LCR setup, but there wasn't anything really available except the Concerta2 S16 which is discontinued. In any case, the Q4/Q8 setup has been working great alongside my Revels, and I don't have any noticeable issues with timbre matching, although I did use Audyssey MultEQ-X to help dial things in.

The Q4s actually replaced an old pair of KEF T301s I had used as surrounds, and it's a huge improvement in overall sound quality and bass extension. Even though they are low profile on the wall, they can still dig fairly deep on their own. I'm able to comfortably set the sub crossover to 80 Hz, and nothing sounds stressed at high volume. These seem to be a really good option for general on-wall duty, and I'd be curious to one day set them up in stereo just to see what they can do in a 2.1 system. These could be a great alternative to a sound bar for a wall mounted TV, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if KEF introduced something in a similar form factor but in the R range.

The Q8s are sidewall mounted up high near the ceiling as front and rear Atmos channels, and the built in downward angles made it easy to mount and adjust. I really didn't want to ceiling mount and deal with separate speaker mounts, so these fit the bill. While they don't have the bigger, ported enclosure of the Q4, the Q8s still had decent bass extension probably from positioning near the ceiling/wall edge. For Atmos tracks, they had no problem delivering crisp height sound effects without sibilance.

For the money, I think both the Q4s and Q8s are great values as high quality surround/height channels. I'm not sure I'd be able to tell the difference between these and more expensive options for movies/television. Maybe for multi-channel music there would be more benefit to having full-range, higher priced alternatives, but I typically stick to stereo music.

 

[geox]

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

is this measurable?

what does wall of sound mean in the context of uniq driver? did you mean sounding "big"

 

[testp]

is this measurable?

what does wall of sound mean in the context of uniq driver? did you mean sounding "big"

this actually is, vertical dispersion: 3.woofers (upto ~500Hz) vs ls50 1.woofer

 

[aarons915]

is this measurable?

what does wall of sound mean in the context of uniq driver? did you mean sounding "big"

What I meant was the large array of bass drivers in the Q11 sound like a large line source and not as much of a "point source", they do sound big for that reason and the fact that they produce a lot of bass but I don't think it's as natural as the LS50s within their limits. The tradeoff of course is the ability to play much louder at lower distortion levels.

 

[Svend P]

is this measurable?

what does wall of sound mean in the context of uniq driver? did you mean sounding "big"

This guy though the KEFs sounded bigger than the gigantic JBL 4722s

KEF LS50 (David) Versus JBL 4722 Cinema (Goliath) Speaker Comparison with Binaural Recordings

Here are two extreme opposite loudspeakers when it comes to sensitivity, size, directivity, topology and looks. Does the big speaker sound perceptually larger than the smaller speaker? Do the speakers sound the same if eq’d the same and level matched? Does the LS50 sound perceptually bigger when ...

audiophilestyle.com

 

[aarons915]

Just looking at the whitepaper, to my eyes the Q6 Meta appears to be the best of the bunch as far as smoothness of the directivity and they don't have as severe of a drop off in the highs as some of the others. With a few PEQ filters you can make these even better, I may try them as LCR sometime to see how they do.

 

[ucmike11]

I've got a Q6 meta coming in soon, I am excited to compare it against my Q650c.

I'm still considering the swap of my Q350 for the Q Concerto's, but the cost/performance debate continues!

 

[CJH]

Looks like the Q6 meta has a bit more bass and a linear estimated in-room response.
https://www.spinorama.org/compare.h...gin1=ErinsAudioCorner&version1=eac-horizontal
CJH

 

[testp]

what is this? is this a diffraction and could it be rectified with peq.
from spinorama.org (this is the deviation graph):

 

[holbob]

They've all got that on the Q Meta series. I don't think it's audible. I wouldn't be correcting that high personally.

 

[testp]

absolutely, i would not worry about it as well, was just curious...

 

[MarcT]

They've all got that on the Q Meta series. I don't think it's audible. I wouldn't be correcting that high personally.

Well, I'm a long, many years from being able to hear anything that high!

 

[ucmike11]

After a few days with the Q6 meta, I can say that I am really enjoying the swap from the Q650c. Besides sounding less harsh, there is a much fuller sound, with Dirac taming some of the peaks below 500hz. Also, and this is anecdotal and I have no science to back it up - the Q650c I felt had some resonances from the speaker cabinet, whereas the Q6 Meta does not and never sounds "boxy"

Q650c vs Q6 meta uncorrected at my listening position with Umik-1:

 

[FBech]

Ho would compare the KEF Q7 meta with the Q5040?

 

[fedocable]

Since there's still no specific thread about the Kef Q Concerto Meta, I'll take my chances and drop this question here. I have a nice Accuphase E-202, recently recapped, that I've been using for years with a pair of Elac Debut 5.2 which are clearly under its league. After watching Erin's review of the Concertos, I started having wet dreams of getting them for this system. Now, the problem is that they would need to be placed really close to the back wall -like 1/2 foot close-, almost at the corners of the room. I know that wouldn't be a big issue for other speakers in the Q Meta line (Kef even sell brackets to hang them on the wall), but I'm not so sure about this one. I live in Argentina, which not only means that I wouldn't have the chance to return them, but also that they would cost almost 2000 instead of 1300, so I need to really watch my step. Any feedback will be warmly welcomed!

 

[aCuria]

Since there's still no specific thread about the Kef Q Concerto Meta, I'll take my chances and drop this question here. I have a nice Accuphase E-202, recently recapped, that I've been using for years with a pair of Elac Debut 5.2 which are clearly under its league. After watching Erin's review of the Concertos, I started having wet dreams of getting them for this system. Now, the problem is that they would need to be placed really close to the back wall -like 1/2 foot close-, almost at the corners of the room. I know that wouldn't be a big issue for other speakers in the Q Meta line (Kef even sell brackets to hang them on the wall), but I'm not so sure about this one. I live in Argentina, which not only means that I wouldn't have the chance to return them, but also that they would cost almost 2000 instead of 1300, so I need to really watch my step. Any feedback will be warmly welcomed!

I don’t own the speaker but you can consult the manual

User manual KEF Q Concerto Meta (English - 25 pages)

Manual KEF Q Concerto Meta. View the KEF Q Concerto Meta manual for free or ask your question to other KEF Q Concerto Meta owners.

www.usermanuals.au

It says insert some foam plug depending on distance to wall

 

[holbob]

I have the Q7 Meta, and have them as much against the front wall as the plinth allows. EQ removed the bass peaks, and there is no boominess. If you insert the foam bungs, it WILL remove the bottom octave.

 

[thewas]

I have the Q7 Meta, and have them as much against the front wall as the plinth allows. EQ removed the bass peaks, and there is no boominess. If you insert the foam bungs, it WILL remove the bottom octave.

True, I have also placed mine similarly (there is still around 30 cm distance due to a radiator) and the response without EQ is quite well following the Harman experienced listeners target: