KEF Q Meta is Coming

[FBech]

Yesterday I got to listen to Q Concerto Meta and they were great, I was thinking about the Q7 Meta, how different are these going to be? better or worst?

 

[MarcT]

Yesterday I got to listen to Q Concerto Meta and they were great, I was thinking about the Q7 Meta, how different are these going to be? better or worst?

Lol, a lot better to me because I don't have to buy or fiddle with stands!

 

[AnalogSteph]

Looks pretty close to me in-room, though you may want to address the slight dip around 1 kHz with EQ. Probably the most noticeable difference: More, more even and deeper bass. (So pretty much what you expect in the standmount version with a second woofer: Similar but more oomph.)

 

[fedocable]

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.

That sounds even closer to the wall that in my case! How bad was the boominess before applying EQ? I was considering the front ported Elac DBR62s or Kef350s to play safer on that field, but from what I read the Q Concertos sound like a much better candidate. So if the resonance can be tempered with panels behind and on the side of the speakers (they go almost in the corners) and some EQ via Roon, I'll definitely move them to the top of my list. I would just need to turn a bit down the bass on the amp when playing records, but that's not the end of the world.

 

[Shimrra Jamaane]

Is there any real reason to purchase the R8 Meta rather than the Q8 Meta for use as on ceiling atmos speakers?

 

[ucmike11]

Speaking of Q7's, I have a quick question that hopefully someone more knowledgeable knows the answer to:

Why is the UNI-Q on top in the Q7, but located in the middle of the two woofers on the R7 line? What difference does the different mounting location make to the measurements?

 

[MarcT]

Speaking of Q7's, I have a quick question that hopefully someone more knowledgeable knows the answer to:

Why is the UNI-Q on top in the Q7, but located in the middle of the two woofers on the R7 line? What difference does the different mounting location make to the measurements?

View attachment 428086

Yes, I've also wondered about that. The tweeter on the the R7 seems really low.

 

[thewas]

Speaking of Q7's, I have a quick question that hopefully someone more knowledgeable knows the answer to:

Why is the UNI-Q on top in the Q7, but located in the middle of the two woofers on the R7 line? What difference does the different mounting location make to the measurements?

View attachment 428086

The measurements are usually done at the height of the acoustic axis which for coaxials is obvious, so they wouldn't differ much because of that but of course the height of the actual listening position will play a role at which vertical angle they will be listened to. The good thing is that such designs don't have big tonal changes for the expected relative angles up to 20° and actually are even smoother than at 0° but what can be disadvantage of the R7 is that the perceived image could appear lower which might not correlate so well to our impressions and memories from typical live music events.

 

[Bucking]

How would the Concerto compare to the R3s (non meta)?
Assuming both are about the same price.

 

[uwotm8]

How would the Concerto compare to the R3s (non meta)

I'd highly suggest you to check it by yourself.
FR graphs are good thing to check overall balance and so, but real experience will give you more. Actually, you can see traces of that "more" on FR graph: R3 has a lot smoother graph. It has better cabinet, die cast drivers chassis, better crossover components and so on.
That said, applying a ruler to FR graph or PIR or whatever can lead you to funny situation when you make the "smart choice" and grab a cheaper but more praised pair of speakers and then once hear a "flawed" but higher level product. There's a big chance that you'll feel yourself fooled at that moment.
Many years ago when KEF low range lineup was iQ and the next range was XQ, the latter was on a whole different level. Like night and day difference.
So check both Q Con and R3 before buying

 

[Bucking]

I'd highly suggest you to check it by yourself.
FR graphs are good thing to check overall balance and so, but real experience will give you more. Actually, you can see traces of that "more" on FR graph: R3 has a lot smoother graph. It has better cabinet, die cast drivers chassis, better crossover components and so on.
That said, applying a ruler to FR graph or PIR or whatever can lead you to funny situation when you make the "smart choice" and grab a cheaper but more praised pair of speakers and then once hear a "flawed" but higher level product. There's a big chance that you'll feel yourself fooled at that moment.
Many years ago when KEF low range lineup was iQ and the next range was XQ, the latter was on a whole different level. Like night and day difference.
So check both Q Con and R3 before buying

Less bass on the R3 would probably be beneficial to me since they are gonna be placed close to a wall

 

[MarcT]

I'd highly suggest you to check it by yourself.
FR graphs are good thing to check overall balance and so, but real experience will give you more. Actually, you can see traces of that "more" on FR graph: R3 has a lot smoother graph. It has better cabinet, die cast drivers chassis, better crossover components and so on.
That said, applying a ruler to FR graph or PIR or whatever can lead you to funny situation when you make the "smart choice" and grab a cheaper but more praised pair of speakers and then once hear a "flawed" but higher level product. There's a big chance that you'll feel yourself fooled at that moment.
Many years ago when KEF low range lineup was iQ and the next range was XQ, the latter was on a whole different level. Like night and day difference.
So check both Q Con and R3 before buying

Hmm, R3 going to sound bright?

 

[uwotm8]

Hmm, R3 going to sound bright?

If set in a free space of rather live room and directly on axis - highly likely. But why would treat them like that?
I've always preferred speakers - any speakers, all of them - to be turned slightly off-axis, "to the outside".
Sound feels to me more spacious and comfortable that way, even with speakers which are far from bright.
For KEF-like smooth directivity speakers it's definitely a way to find "right" balance, same as finding the best distance from the rear wall in your particular case (mind bass shelving).

 

[MarcT]

If set in a free space of rather live room and directly on axis - highly likely. But why would treat them like that?
I've always preferred speakers - any speakers, all of them - to be turned slightly off-axis, "to the outside".
Sound feels to me more spacious and comfortable that way, even with speakers which are far from bright.
For KEF-like smooth directivity speakers it's definitely a way to find "right" balance, same as finding the best distance from the rear wall in your particular case (mind bass shelving).

I guess I should have said, sound bright compared to the Q Concerto, from looking at the high frequencies in the graph. Looks to be a 2 dB difference in the highs.

 

[uwotm8]

sound bright compared to the Q Concerto

Yes, but Concerto are not neutral according to measurements, they have "dark" tilt a bit. Even on axis.
Between the two - fixing potentially dark or potentially bright - maybe I'd chose bright ones as far as I can tame HF a bit by turning off axis slightly. Fixing dark ones will require PEQ - only for PC users and very limited amount of modern amps it's a default & free option.
May happen tho that Q Concerto tune will fit most people as is. My main concern about them is overall level which I suspect doesn't reach R series ("almost the same" Q150 are not LS50 as well). FR/tonal balance is not a whole story and I'd definitely give R3 a try if they cost the same.

 

[MarcT]

Yes, but Concerto are not neutral according to measurements, they have "dark" tilt a bit. Even on axis.
Between the two - fixing potentially dark or potentially bright - maybe I'd chose bright ones as far as I can tame HF a bit by turning off axis slightly. Fixing dark ones will require PEQ - only for PC users and very limited amount of modern amps it's a default & free option.
May happen tho that Q Concerto tune will fit most people as is. My main concern about them is overall level which I suspect doesn't reach R series ("almost the same" Q150 are not LS50 as well). FR/tonal balance is not a whole story and I'd definitely give R3 a try if they cost the same.

Hmm, with my age-related hearing loss, it seems the bit brighter speaker might be a better choice?

 

[Soulone]

Hi,

First off, I'm not an expert and I still find myself struggling to fully understand some of the graphs shared in ASR. However, this video has been on my mind lately, especially the pink noise comparison. I know that when evaluating the performance or design of a speaker, there are many factors to consider, but shouldn't the decay in high frequencies of the Concerto/Mofi be pointed out as a potential downside? After all, it seems to "deviate" from the "original" sound, as indicated by the pink noise test.

I understand that the Concerto excels in other areas, but this "darkness" or "less brightness" in the sound is often accepted as a "characteristic" rather than a "design flaw" or "problem." But shouldn't all speakers aim for a similar high-frequency slope, like the Blade 2 Meta shows in the video?

I'm planning to demo the Q7, Q11, and R3 Meta in-store soon, but I already have a feeling I won’t prefer the Q7 or Q11 due to this issue. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

So, here’s my noobie question: If I use Dirac to EQ my room, which option would be more optimal? Should I get the R3, which has more favorable high frequencies (to my taste), and use EQ to correct the lower frequencies? Or should I go for the Q7/Q11 and use Dirac to boost the high frequencies?

Thanks for your insights!

 

[thewas]

Hi,

First off, I'm not an expert and I still find myself struggling to fully understand some of the graphs shared in ASR. However, this video has been on my mind lately, especially the pink noise comparison. I know that when evaluating the performance or design of a speaker, there are many factors to consider, but shouldn't the decay in high frequencies of the Concerto/Mofi be pointed out as a potential downside? After all, it seems to "deviate" from the "original" sound, as indicated by the pink noise test.

I understand that the Concerto excels in other areas, but this "darkness" or "less brightness" in the sound is often accepted as a "characteristic" rather than a "design flaw" or "problem." But shouldn't all speakers aim for a similar high-frequency slope, like the Blade 2 Meta shows in the video?

I'm planning to demo the Q7, Q11, and R3 Meta in-store soon, but I already have a feeling I won’t prefer the Q7 or Q11 due to this issue. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

So, here’s my noobie question: If I use Dirac to EQ my room, which option would be more optimal? Should I get the R3, which has more favorable high frequencies (to my taste), and use EQ to correct the lower frequencies? Or should I go for the Q7/Q11 and use Dirac to boost the high frequencies?

Thanks for your insights!

In the end how much treble energy is perceived depends not only on the direct sound response but also on the directivity of the loudspeaker, the reflectivity of the room and the listening distance.

Now to your question if you prioritize high listening levels and/or deep bass the Q7/Q11 could be a better choice as due to few reasons its less problematic to increase per EQ the tweeter level then the bass one or even more the bass depth.

 

[testp]

also try eyes closed when demoing, that kinda helps to shut down the analyising part, bias etc. if you can demo 2 x Q6 metas, i would...by looking at the spinorama data.

 

[Pritaudio]

I’m considering these with hypex amplifier or a pair of Neumann kh150 instead.