KEF Q Meta is Coming

[holbob]

Could you please post them there?

Hi.

Left

Right

I eq around to 3k (where it starts to drop off) but not too much off. Ignore the bass, I have quite ridiculous boundary gain, and there is 5 peq's in both speakers to control it being running dirac. It is 13 measurements across a 3 seater sofa, one seat is in a corner and quite different to the other 2 seats.


Here is raw at the main listening position.

 

[Jaxjax]

thewas is more appropriate for comment on this but are you EQing using the spin data or what DIRAC or REW is spitting out at MLP .?

 

[thewas]

Here is raw at the main listening position.

Could you post on the same plot also the responses from REW after the correction? I see on this raw plot no real standing out mids, just a quite step treble roll of after 2 kHz.

 

[aarons915]

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 whitepaper mentions location of the woofers and that they measure better the way they have them placed but what I'm curious about is whether flanking the UniQ with 2 woofers is better for retaining the point source characteristics, similar to the Blade or LS60. I actually just ordered a Q6 Meta to test this theory out against my LS50 so I should have some impressions next weekend. What I have noticed so far with all of the 3 ways is you do localize some of the male vocals to the woofer but it's probably worth the trade off for most people.

 

[CJH]

Anxious for review of the Q6 Meta.
CJH

 

[aarons915]

Alright so I received 3 Q6 to use as LCR but still waiting on some stuff to mount the center above the TV but I've been listening in stereo all weekend and they work great as mains so far. My biggest gripe going to 3 ways in the past is I was losing a bit of the point source sound but the MTM layout seems to create an apparent point source better than the R3 I was using a few years back, I'm sure that is why the R and Ref series use this driver configuration. Anyway, comparing these back and forth with my original LS50 it's clear the midrange is much smoother on the Q6, I EQ the LS50 to tame the highs but they still seemed a bit more forward than the Q6. The bass is really good as well, I was worried that being sealed they may roll off too soon in room but they handle an 80Hz high pass fine and have much more mid bass so sub integration is a lot easier than with the LS50.

It seems this new 4" UniQ is the direction KEF is heading and from what I'm hearing it's a good decision, it sounds delicate and open with very good dispersion. The cabinets are the only obvious compromise with these speakers, they are not to the level of the R series but they don't look bad, if we could get a black ash vinyl wrap I think the black would look a lot better. As I normally do, I made a set of PEQ filters with KEFs data from the whitepaper and smoothed them out even more and brought up the highs a bit in the 7-10k region. Overall they're great speakers, they can play loud and sound neutral with anything I've thrown at them so far. Attached a few pics of the size difference compared to the LS50 and some response curves.

 

[testp]

Alright so I received 3 Q6 to use as LCR but still waiting on some stuff to mount the center above the TV but I've been listening in stereo all weekend and they work great as mains so far. My biggest gripe going to 3 ways in the past is I was losing a bit of the point source sound but the MTM layout seems to create an apparent point source better than the R3 I was using a few years back, I'm sure that is why the R and Ref series use this driver configuration. Anyway, comparing these back and forth with my original LS50 it's clear the midrange is much smoother on the Q6, I EQ the LS50 to tame the highs but they still seemed a bit more forward than the Q6. The bass is really good as well, I was worried that being sealed they may roll off too soon in room but they handle an 80Hz high pass fine and have much more mid bass so sub integration is a lot easier than with the LS50.

It seems this new 4" UniQ is the direction KEF is heading and from what I'm hearing it's a good decision, it sounds delicate and open with very good dispersion. The cabinets are the only obvious compromise with these speakers, they are not to the level of the R series but they don't look bad, if we could get a black ash vinyl wrap I think the black would look a lot better. As I normally do, I made a set of PEQ filters with KEFs data from the whitepaper and smoothed them out even more and brought up the highs a bit in the 7-10k region. Overall they're great speakers, they can play loud and sound neutral with anything I've thrown at them so far. Attached a few pics of the size difference compared to the LS50 and some response curves.

great to hear, looking forward to listening tests vol2

im thinking myself getting some ls50's for mostly tv listening, planning on adding kef t2 sub's, altought T2's are quite old in kef lineup and wierdly gone almost 2 times more expensive than ~10 years ago.

 

[Ognian]

I couldn't get the Q7 to sound right in my space.. It felt like they kept exciting the room in the wrong ways, so I returned them after three weeks of desperately trying different placement/eq and measurements..

My suspicion is that the somewhat hollow box (especially at the bottom, where there is a huge undamped cavity and the crossover, was exciting my centennial flimsy wooden floor and classic North American drywall construction. The more I turned the volume up, the more abrasive they sounded, mostly around the first crossover ~450hz.

I have to mention that KEF were amazing to deal with, their support was super responsive trying to help me with my issues and the return was painless and refund instantaneous.
So they have our backs so to speak (I'm in Canada btw and most of the Q line is discounted right now, 2000$CAD for the Q7 metas with free ship and only one tax felt like stealing).

I tried them in a smaller corner room in the house and they sounded fantastic, so I'm not trying to bash them at all, they are great speakers. Absolutely stunning imaging and precision. The packaging and outrigger design are very well executed.
An absolutely awesome deal for the money, however the construction quality is pretty bare bones. The very sharp corners and vinyl wrap layers were almost coming apart just looking at them. Clearly all the money went into the drivers & crossover. Some of the corner bracing wasn't even touching both sides before being glued up... I took a peek behind the binding posts and managed to snap some pics inside the cabinet. The crossover is located at the very bottom of the speaker, parallel to the floor.

After this experience, I was hesitant to purchase other speakers fearing my room was a huge bottleneck and could not sound any better than with my Dynaudio excite x34 I've been using daily for the past 5 years.. Some of the best measuring speakers sounded so wrong..

I got a used pair of used Ascend Sierra LX and so far they absolutely amazing sounding in the same room. The only EQ I've applied to them is to correct the known room modes in the bass..

Of course YMMV and these speakers will be super satisfying to many people but I wanted to share my experience nonetheless.

Thank you thewas for taking the time to try and help me via DM !

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

What I have noticed so far with all of the 3 ways is you do localize some of the male vocals to the woofer but it's probably worth the trade off for most people.

I guess this also depends on how far away you are from the speakers. Some people even use this KEF 3-way bookshelves nearfield.
Also interesting if there is height information in good recordings that is audible; a good point-source might do this better, but then this would be an advantage of coaxial/coincident in the first place.
Some years ago I 'eq-ed' my original ls50's by ataching a layer of loose wool felt on the baffle (after a lot of experimentation and comparisons) Although it really worked, I find the r3 meta that I now use (both with sub) better in every respect, except maybe with piano; I remember how it was easy to imagine that there was a real piano in the room with the treated ls50's, but maybe because this was a rather new experience then. But could this be a point-source-thing? I'd think it has more to do with timbre.
When there is no real height information from the recording, a male voice could in theory benefit from a woofer beneath, imitating the vibrating chest.

 

[aarons915]

Hi Aaron,

That's a good question. I don't know if I can give a short answer to that...

When coming up with a loudspeaker design, the first thing that's decided, is usually the number and type of drivers. This decision is informed from the science of electroacoustic comprise and the art of balancing those compromises. Many people (including me at one point) decide that the best loudspeaker is a full range driver in a sealed cabinet. This is maybe the "purest" loudspeaker architecture. All the sound actually comes from a single drive unit, and the binding posts are directly connected to the terminals of the driver. However, as many on here would point out, a speaker like that is not very good at many aspects of sound reproduction - Can't play loud, can't play low, can't really play high, can't deliver an even on and off-axis sound. That being said, they've always had a great following from their "point-source-like" qualities.

I believe the LS50 is so popular for similar reasons, albeit with fewer compromises. It can play lower, it has a nice tweeter for HF, and the sound is very spatially consistent. This has only been possible with around 40-45 years (at time of writing) of focussed development. As such, the drive units are very specialised, pushing the 2-way coaxial acoustic concept as far as possible. There are, of course, penalties to pay for this. One facet of the performance of the LS50 that can really benefit from having an extra drive unit is the distortion. The THD is pretty reasonable, but, the IMD suffers. This is the same for all 2-way coaxs, and aside from using a larger coax, such as an 8" or a 10", there's nothing to be done. As the little 5.25" LMF (with a hole in the middle) on the LS50 is told to reproduce bass, they can be overdriven relatively easily, especially with modern high power amplifiers. This, again, would benefit from handing over to a "real" bass driver that's much more resilient.

If I can pick your brain a bit more it would be appreciated sir. So I recently grabbed 3 Q6 to try as LCR and I love them but had a few questions. I'm noticing that the MTM configuration seems to replicate the "point source" nature better than the R3 I had a few years ago, is this why most of the 3 ways are in this configuration? The Q11 by contrast did sound like a large wall of sound when I heard them at a local best buy.

I read about the 4" UniQ in the LS60 whitepaper but it didn't talk about the reasons why KEF went with the smaller UniQ for that speaker, is this the future of KEF 3 ways or are there different situations where you would choose a 5" UniQ still? I feel like this 4" UniQ is the star of the show, it has great dispersion and sounds very natural.

A side note, these things are pretty large, I would think a more compact LCR would be a huge hit even though it would give up some bass performance.

 

[AOR]

If I can pick your brain a bit more it would be appreciated sir. So I recently grabbed 3 Q6 to try as LCR and I love them but had a few questions. I'm noticing that the MTM configuration seems to replicate the "point source" nature better than the R3 I had a few years ago, is this why most of the 3 ways are in this configuration? The Q11 by contrast did sound like a large wall of sound when I heard them at a local best buy.

I read about the 4" UniQ in the LS60 whitepaper but it didn't talk about the reasons why KEF went with the smaller UniQ for that speaker, is this the future of KEF 3 ways or are there different situations where you would choose a 5" UniQ still? I feel like this 4" UniQ is the star of the show, it has great dispersion and sounds very natural.

A side note, these things are pretty large, I would think a more compact LCR would be a huge hit even though it would give up some bass performance.

Hi Aaron,

Nice to hear you are enjoying your Q6s.

To be honest, I'm not sure why an MTM might have more of a point source effect that an R3-style configuration. It's not something we give too much thought to, as it's difficult to quantify. The only thing I can think of is that the MF and HF on the Q6 is smaller than on the R3, so the dispersion is going to be a little wider. The MTM configuration was initially developed to combat the problems of having the main lobe of the system not firing straight forward.

(From the MTM Wikipedia page)

What we do with our driver arrangement is a little different. We have the T and the M in the same place, so regardless of where the bass drivers are, the main lobe is pretty much going to be firing forward.

You are correct in that the 4" UniQ was developed for LS60 Wireless. The goal of that speaker was to go as narrow as possible. At some point, the limiting factor was the width of the UniQ. This necessitated designing a smaller UniQ. It's probably not the way that KEF UniQ are going. It's just a nice solution to fit certain design constraints. We would consider using it where we need a small UniQ, or a slightly cheaper UniQ.

This is why we used it in LS60 Wireless (for narrowness), Ci250RRM-THX (for overall compactness), Q Series Meta (for cost effectiveness). This size of UniQ (albeit with a different motor) is what is used in the Lotus Eletre. Car audio needs small, light and cost conscious design.

We did consider having a larger and a smaller Q series LCR speaker, in line with previous Q series lineups. However, those were quite easy to do previously, with all the drivers already existing from the floorstanders. For the current Q series Meta, we only had one size of LF. If we wanted to do a smaller LCR, we would have had to develop the driver specifically for that model.

 

[aarons915]

Hi Aaron,

Nice to hear you are enjoying your Q6s.

To be honest, I'm not sure why an MTM might have more of a point source effect that an R3-style configuration. It's not something we give too much thought to, as it's difficult to quantify. The only thing I can think of is that the MF and HF on the Q6 is smaller than on the R3, so the dispersion is going to be a little wider. The MTM configuration was initially developed to combat the problems of having the main lobe of the system not firing straight forward.

View attachment 445673View attachment 445674
(From the MTM Wikipedia page)

What we do with our driver arrangement is a little different. We have the T and the M in the same place, so regardless of where the bass drivers are, the main lobe is pretty much going to be firing forward.

You are correct in that the 4" UniQ was developed for LS60 Wireless. The goal of that speaker was to go as narrow as possible. At some point, the limiting factor was the width of the UniQ. This necessitated designing a smaller UniQ. It's probably not the way that KEF UniQ are going. It's just a nice solution to fit certain design constraints. We would consider using it where we need a small UniQ, or a slightly cheaper UniQ.

This is why we used it in LS60 Wireless (for narrowness), Ci250RRM-THX (for overall compactness), Q Series Meta (for cost effectiveness). This size of UniQ (albeit with a different motor) is what is used in the Lotus Eletre. Car audio needs small, light and cost conscious design.

We did consider having a larger and a smaller Q series LCR speaker, in line with previous Q series lineups. However, those were quite easy to do previously, with all the drivers already existing from the floorstanders. For the current Q series Meta, we only had one size of LF. If we wanted to do a smaller LCR, we would have had to develop the driver specifically for that model.

Thank you for the detailed response as usual. The only thing I've read that sort of makes sense on the MTM or for KEF speakers Woofer/UniQ/Woofer arrangement is from the newest Reference whitepaper talking about at a distance the soundfields sound like a point source so it makes sense to keep the woofers close to the midrange.

I don't know how to quantify it either except the rule of thumb of keeping the highest frequencies of the bass driver a quarter wavelength in distance from the midrange driver. For me just comparing 2 speakers Harman style, aka a single speaker of each in mono, instantly switching back and forth, etc, is the easiest way to tell differences like that. I don't expect a 3 way to match the LS50's in that regard but the Q6 get close enough that the benefits of bass output and low distortion outweigh the slight advantage in creating a perfect point source presentation.

 

[mrmojo]

For those who have listened to the Kef Concerto Meta, what do you think of the bass? To me it sounds a bit anemic, doesn't get very low at all.

I also have a pair of polk r200's and es15's that I purchased, that are still within the return window, as are the kef's, and I think the bass may be deeper on the polk's (even the cheap one).

I also have genelec 8030c's on my desk, and the bass on them just sounds proper.

Although maybe I'm missing something/not giving the kef's a fair chance.

The kef's do sound wonderful in the mid and high frequencies though. maybe bass is something that kef just doesn't do well.

 

[Roy_D]

Alright so I received 3 Q6 to use as LCR but still waiting on some stuff to mount the center above the TV but I've been listening in stereo all weekend and they work great as mains so far. My biggest gripe going to 3 ways in the past is I was losing a bit of the point source sound but the MTM layout seems to create an apparent point source better than the R3 I was using a few years back, I'm sure that is why the R and Ref series use this driver configuration. Anyway, comparing these back and forth with my original LS50 it's clear the midrange is much smoother on the Q6, I EQ the LS50 to tame the highs but they still seemed a bit more forward than the Q6. The bass is really good as well, I was worried that being sealed they may roll off too soon in room but they handle an 80Hz high pass fine and have much more mid bass so sub integration is a lot easier than with the LS50.

It seems this new 4" UniQ is the direction KEF is heading and from what I'm hearing it's a good decision, it sounds delicate and open with very good dispersion. The cabinets are the only obvious compromise with these speakers, they are not to the level of the R series but they don't look bad, if we could get a black ash vinyl wrap I think the black would look a lot better. As I normally do, I made a set of PEQ filters with KEFs data from the whitepaper and smoothed them out even more and brought up the highs a bit in the 7-10k region. Overall they're great speakers, they can play loud and sound neutral with anything I've thrown at them so far. Attached a few pics of the size difference compared to the LS50 and some response curves.

These d'appolito kefs look and measure terrific =] Maybe a little challenge to find a stand to fit them visually to use as mains but a couple of subs checks that box =D

 

[Robert-Hifi]

For those who have listened to the Kef Concerto Meta, what do you think of the bass? To me it sounds a bit anemic, doesn't get very low at all.

I also have a pair of polk r200's and es15's that I purchased, that are still within the return window, as are the kef's, and I think the bass may be deeper on the polk's (even the cheap one).

I also have genelec 8030c's on my desk, and the bass on them just sounds proper.

Although maybe I'm missing something/not giving the kef's a fair chance.

The kef's do sound wonderful in the mid and high frequencies though. maybe bass is something that kef just doesn't do well.

Do you have the KEF Concerto Meta placed close to the wall?
With their extended bass shelf they benefit from being positioned close to the wall.

 

[Matt_Holland]

For those who have listened to the Kef Concerto Meta, what do you think of the bass? To me it sounds a bit anemic, doesn't get very low at all.

I also have a pair of polk r200's and es15's that I purchased, that are still within the return window, as are the kef's, and I think the bass may be deeper on the polk's (even the cheap one).

I also have genelec 8030c's on my desk, and the bass on them just sounds proper.

Although maybe I'm missing something/not giving the kef's a fair chance.

The kef's do sound wonderful in the mid and high frequencies though. maybe bass is something that kef just doesn't do well.

I’m not sure if this helps but I recently listened to the R3 and Q7 at the KEF music gallery in central London. They were both setup about 1m away from the front wall and both suffered from a lack of bass and lower mid, possibly due to SBIR. The R3 in particular with its extended bass shelf sounded very lean. Both however had very clean, fast and tuneful bass (read, lack of resonances and overhang). The R3 had amazing midrange, perhaps a bit emphasised in the upper mid and treble. The Q7 sounded incredibly linear and just a touch dark tonally. A really great speaker for the money.

 

[MarcT]

Okay guys, I'm seriously about to buy a set of Q11 Meta to try out. I recently bought a set of Martin Logan Motion Foundation F2 towers and I still have almost a month to return them. When I bought them, I was deciding between the Q11 Meta's and the F2's. I decided on the F2's because of reading that the highs are rolled off in the Q Meta series, compared to the KEF R series. With my high frequency hearing loss, I thought maybe the F2's would be a better option. My thought is to be able to compare the Q11's to the F2's for a couple weeks and then decide which ones to keep.

Now, having listened to the F2's for a month, I think they are pretty good, but I don't get that much of a coherent sound from them. And I don't find them "bright" at all, perhaps due to my old ears. My usage is a 50/50 mix of music/movies, so I need to have speakers that are good for both.

Also, this system is in our family room, and I'm not allowed to have much in the way of room treatments. With full carpeting, window drapes, and a large sofa, the room is fairly "dead". If I clap my hands, there is not much echo in there. Also, the family room is open to the breakfast area and kitchen, which is open to the rest of the house. Thus, this setup is probably an acoustic nightmare.

In light of this, I think I need speakers that perform better in non-ideal rooms. I'm now thinking that maybe the KEF's, with their Uni-Q tweeter/mid driver setup may sound better in my environment? Any thoughts? Here are pics of the room and setup if that helps.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Okay guys, I'm seriously about to buy a set of Q11 Meta to try out. I recently bought a set of Martin Logan Motion Foundation F2 towers and I still have almost a month to return them. When I bought them, I was deciding between the Q11 Meta's and the F2's. I decided on the F2's because of reading that the highs are rolled off in the Q Meta series, compared to the KEF R series. With my high frequency hearing loss, I thought maybe the F2's would be a better option. My thought is to be able to compare the Q11's to the F2's for a couple weeks and then decide which ones to keep.

Now, having listened to the F2's for a month, I think they are pretty good, but I don't get that much of a coherent sound from them. And I don't find them "bright" at all, perhaps due to my old ears. My usage is a 50/50 mix of music/movies, so I need to have speakers that are good for both.

Also, this system is in our family room, and I'm not allowed to have much in the way of room treatments. With full carpeting, window drapes, and a large sofa, the room is fairly "dead". If I clap my hands, there is not much echo in there. Also, the family room is open to the breakfast area and kitchen, which is open to the rest of the house. Thus, this setup is probably an acoustic nightmare.

In light of this, I think I need speakers that perform better in non-ideal rooms. I'm now thinking that maybe the KEF's, with their Uni-Q tweeter/mid driver setup may sound better in my environment? Any thoughts? Here are pics of the room and setup if that helps.View attachment 448405View attachment 448406

The Q7 I heard sound exactly like how Erin described the Q11 in his review. They don’t produce the vivid midrange “presence” of the R models, but they draw you in with a more laid back and highly neutral sound that has incredible resolution. I can imagine them failing to win on quick demos, but being a really great long term prospect as they are so clean and lacking fatigue.
Because their directivity is so good you should be able to EQ the Q11 to your taste as well. For me they might benefit from a 1-2dB shelf to make the overall tonal balance just a little bit brighter, but not much. Probably depends mainly on how much side wall reflections you’re getting.
I found there to be something just inherently right about the Uni-Q drivers too. And on paper they should suit more rooms compared to a speaker with a worse directivity.
Well worth trying them out I would say.

 

[aarons915]

The Q7 I heard sound exactly like how Erin described the Q11 in his review. They don’t produce the vivid midrange “presence” of the R models, but they draw you in with a more laid back and highly neutral sound that has incredible resolution. I can imagine them failing to win on quick demos, but being a really great long term prospect as they are so clean and lacking fatigue.
Because their directivity is so good you should be able to EQ the Q11 to your taste as well. For me they might benefit from a 1-2dB shelf to make the overall tonal balance just a little bit brighter, but not much. Probably depends mainly on how much side wall reflections you’re getting.
I found there to be something just inherently right about the Uni-Q drivers too. And on paper they should suit more rooms compared to a speaker with a worse directivity.
Well worth trying them out I would say.

I think @thewas mentioned this about the Q7 as well but what I'm noticing is you have to be extremely careful tipping up the treble too much or they can become bright. The spins do make them look somewhat laid back but I think KEF knows what they're doing because they seem to be prioritizing the ER and SP curves with a nice downward slope and they sound very neutral to my ears. All I really do now is smooth out the spin with EQ but I've mostly dialed back the gains I had initially because I was experiencing a slight bit of fatigue after listening awhile. This is what my after EQ graph now and they sound very neutral and smooth to my ears, definitely not laid back. I'm trying to get close to the Reference measurements, assuming that they are the holy grail in what we should be aiming for and I think these are pretty close.

 

[MarcT]

The Q7 I heard sound exactly like how Erin described the Q11 in his review. They don’t produce the vivid midrange “presence” of the R models, but they draw you in with a more laid back and highly neutral sound that has incredible resolution. I can imagine them failing to win on quick demos, but being a really great long term prospect as they are so clean and lacking fatigue.
Because their directivity is so good you should be able to EQ the Q11 to your taste as well. For me they might benefit from a 1-2dB shelf to make the overall tonal balance just a little bit brighter, but not much. Probably depends mainly on how much side wall reflections you’re getting.
I found there to be something just inherently right about the Uni-Q drivers too. And on paper they should suit more rooms compared to a speaker with a worse directivity.
Well worth trying them out I would say.

Nice. I'm thinking to try the Q11's, partly because they will pretty much match the size and tweeter height of my Foundation F2's, and also because I do use these for home theater and the three 6.5" woofers will also match those of the F2's and hopefully produce a bit more mid-bass impact than the Q7's.