KEF Q Meta is Coming

[rsc1]

hmmm, Erin's audio corner review remarked that he can move around a room while not having the kef's performance fall off too much.

On the other hand, I find with the polk if I move out of the sweet spot, there is a strong effect on performance. I'm not the only one who has noticed this either - other online consumer reviews mention it.

So don't know if these subject impressions correspond with the Measurment's, or maybe there is an error in the measurements or the interpretation of them.

There is an error in your interpretation of them.
KEFs have a narrower directivity; however, it is more consistent across frequencies. This allows you to move off-axis and still hear the same sound. Most KEF coaxials actually benefit from a reflective room. If you've ever listened to a KEF coaxial in a highly treated room, chances are you’ll find it to sound "dull" and "lifeless" without reflections (Q series more so than R). The R200 tweeter suffers from "beaming", which is where certain frequencies are radiated in a smaller "beam" compared to others. This is why when you move off-axis, the sound changes. Most likely you just prefer the sound of the R200's slightly boosted treble. As suggested above, if you have PEQ available, try a high shelf boost of 1-2dB around 2-3kHz. KEFs usually take well to EQ since their directivity is well controlled.

 

[MarcT]

Glad to hear that!
I agree that the way KEFs image is simply amazing.
When I listened to the Q7 we also had the R3 in for comparison. The R is very different in tonal balance. Much more hyped which on certain material sounds jaw-droppingly good, but a times just a little too hot in the mid treble. The Q7 just handled whatever we threw at them without even trying and never over-emphesised anything.
I recommend you get a Q centre channel not an R to correctly match tonally.

If I had the money I would get an R floorstander as they are phenomenal. But as I don’t I would get Q7 as they are possibly even better value for money. I would go as far as saying that for a small room the Q7 could be end-game if your taste is for a linear response.

Well, yes, but here's the thing. With a center speaker, the most important thing is dialog intelligibility. My wife and I both have age-related high frequency hearing loss and have a devil of a time understanding the dialog in movies. The Q series is rolled off a bit in the highs and I think we will benefit from the R6 Meta's high frequency extension in this regard. I also just like a big center speaker for dynamics.

 

[RHO]

and have a devil of a time understanding the dialog in movies.

Even with perfect hearing this is a challenge these days. Dialog is pushed so far back in the mix these days it's becoming silly.

 

[rsc1]

Even with perfect hearing this is a challenge these days. Dialog is pushed so far back in the mix these days it's becoming silly.

Watching movies in 2025

Step 1: turn up the volume because you can't hear anything anyone is saying
Step 2: blow out your eardrums because of an explosion and immediately turn down the volume
Step 3: repeat

 

[Putter]

Watching movies in 2025

Step 1: turn up the volume because you can't hear anything anyone is saying
Step 2: blow out your eardrums because of an explosion and immediately turn down the volume
Step 3: repeat

Or turn on the subtitles and use them to learn how to lipread so you don't have those ugly words ruining your picture.

 

[Heinrich]

Well, yes, but here's the thing. With a center speaker, the most important thing is dialog intelligibility. My wife and I both have age-related high frequency hearing loss and have a devil of a time understanding the dialog in movies. The Q series is rolled off a bit in the highs and I think we will benefit from the R6 Meta's high frequency extension in this regard. I also just like a big center speaker for dynamics.

I can't understand why KEF reduces the treble so much. After all, it's 5dB, which is a no go for me. Simply as a matter of principle. I think I've also read on this board from relevant scientists that on-axis reproduction should be nice and flat. The in-room reproduction, the diffuse field would then be shaped accordingly, automatically. It depends on the directivity, how even it is, but also on other parameters such as the interior- which you don't want to take away from people.

Here it seems that the Harman tilt was pursued in the spinorama, i.e. in measurements. It may be that test people like it subjectively in the KEF lab, but at home it looks different.

For me, the Q series is by no means on a par with the R series. The distortion in the bass is 10dB higher, for example. The intermodulation is slightly worse, but the drop-off to the treble due to (presumably) the diffuse field thing, not for me.

Could it be that surround needs a diffuse field? I would rather say not. Because the envelopment comes from the dedicated surround speakers, not from the walls?

 

[MarcT]

Even with perfect hearing this is a challenge these days. Dialog is pushed so far back in the mix these days it's becoming silly.

Yes, we've been watching the NBA playoffs and the TNT audio has the front L/R channels absurdly loud, relative to the center channel. This results in the crowd noise completely drowning out the play by play guys. Interestingly, when I switch my TV audio setting to the internal speakers, I still get sound from my AVR, but it's then two-channel and I can hear the announcers just fine. The crowd sound is much lower then.

 

[MarcT]

I can't understand why KEF reduces the treble so much. After all, it's 5dB, which is a no go for me. Simply as a matter of principle. I think I've also read on this board from relevant scientists that on-axis reproduction should be nice and flat. The in-room reproduction, the diffuse field would then be shaped accordingly, automatically. It depends on the directivity, how even it is, but also on other parameters such as the interior- which you don't want to take away from people.

Here it seems that the Harman tilt was pursued in the spinorama, i.e. in measurements. It may be that test people like it subjectively in the KEF lab, but at home it looks different.

For me, the Q series is by no means on a par with the R series. The distortion in the bass is 10dB higher, for example. The intermodulation is slightly worse, but the drop-off to the treble due to (presumably) the diffuse field thing, not for me.

Could it be that surround needs a diffuse field? I would rather say not. Because the envelopment comes from the dedicated surround speakers, not from the walls?

Maybe if I win the lottery, I'll get some R7 Meta's!

 

[MarcT]

I can't understand why KEF reduces the treble so much. After all, it's 5dB, which is a no go for me. Simply as a matter of principle. I think I've also read on this board from relevant scientists that on-axis reproduction should be nice and flat. The in-room reproduction, the diffuse field would then be shaped accordingly, automatically. It depends on the directivity, how even it is, but also on other parameters such as the interior- which you don't want to take away from people.

Here it seems that the Harman tilt was pursued in the spinorama, i.e. in measurements. It may be that test people like it subjectively in the KEF lab, but at home it looks different.

For me, the Q series is by no means on a par with the R series. The distortion in the bass is 10dB higher, for example. The intermodulation is slightly worse, but the drop-off to the treble due to (presumably) the diffuse field thing, not for me.

Could it be that surround needs a diffuse field? I would rather say not. Because the envelopment comes from the dedicated surround speakers, not from the walls?

Wait. Is it really 10 dB higher? At what sound level is that? I wonder if you only listen at moderate volumes it will be a perceptible difference? I do run my Q11 Meta's full range for two-channel music and I play a lot of stuff with deep bass and kick drums.

 

[Heinrich]

Wait. Is it really 10 dB higher?

See below links for harmonic distortion for the equivalent Concerto and R3

HD@86dB, R3 Meta
HD@86dB, Q Concerto Meta

The difference in i ntermodulation is less significant, see the same site. HD as such isn't that significant to begin with, hence I cannot comment on what you might hear ;-)

 

[thewas]

The difference in i ntermodulation is less significant, see the same site. HD as such isn't that significant to begin with, hence I cannot comment on what you might hear ;-)

Exactly, also -40 dB <=> 1% isn't really audible on that region.

 

[Heinrich]

Exactly, also -40 dB <=> 1% isn't really audible on that region.

It's a little bit close to my personal limits, but anyway, it won't speak too loud against the Q-models.
May I remind you of my caveat regarding the tilt in treble resposne? It's peculiar, to put it mildly.

 

[thewas]

May I remind you of my caveat regarding the tilt in treble resposne? It's peculiar, to put it mildly.

Owning the Q7 Meta myself since few months I can understand that its not everyone's taste, but the good thing is that due to its smooth directivity it can be easily changed by EQ, I currently use a 2 dB shelving filter above 3 kHz for my nearfield LW based correction above 500 Hz:

 

[MarcT]

See below links for harmonic distortion for the equivalent Concerto and R3

HD@86dB, R3 Meta
HD@86dB, Q Concerto Meta

The difference in i ntermodulation is less significant, see the same site. HD as such isn't that significant to begin with, hence I cannot comment on what you might hear ;-)

See below links for harmonic distortion for the equivalent Concerto and R3

HD@86dB, R3 Meta
HD@86dB, Q Concerto Meta

The difference in i ntermodulation is less significant, see the same site. HD as such isn't that significant to begin with, hence I cannot comment on what you might hear ;-)

Thanks, would the Q Meta towers be expected to have lower distortion than the Q Concerto Meta?

 

[Heinrich]

Thanks, would the Q Meta towers be expected to have lower distortion than the Q Concerto Meta?

Sure! And again, sure. The Q is a bit scaled down in its excellence, one might counter it by scaling up ;-)

 

[Jaxjax]

Thanks, would the Q Meta towers be expected to have lower distortion than the Q Concerto Meta?

The Q11 Meta has me interested in that it does have the PIR that I like & EQable. I always shelve off my top ends anyway." thewas" looks like he tilted his from 3k up 2db for taste but listens it looks at much closer distance then me. Since it's an easy EQ speaker then it's just a tone control gig to me. I'm not a big splashy brass lover among other things, so down it goes......I think Q11 meta one of the best choices out there for the $. Have you put the boot to em yet & tried high spl ?

 

[MarcT]

The Q11 Meta has me interested in that it does have the PIR that I like & EQable. I always shelve off my top ends anyway." thewas" looks like he tilted his from 3k up 2db for taste but listens it looks at much closer distance then me. Since it's an easy EQ speaker then it's just a tone control gig to me. I'm not a big splashy brass lover among other things, so down it goes......I think Q11 meta one of the best choices out there for the $. Have you put the boot to em yet & tried high spl ?

You know, I played them pretty loud when I first got them and I wasn't sure how much I liked the sound. But the problem may have been that they are in our family room setup and not an ideal listening environment at all. I'm now playing them at low to moderate volume and they sound great like that.

 

[thewas]

Thanks, would the Q Meta towers be expected to have lower distortion than the Q Concerto Meta?

In the bass region yes as they have more woofers and enclosure volume.

 

[thewas]

thewas" looks like he tilted his from 3k up 2db for taste but listens it looks at much closer distance then me.

Those measurements I use for the correction above 500 Hz are relatively nearfield so direct sound and not room dominates, at my listening position the response with that EQ is more tilted (and by coincidence also matches the average Harman loudspeaker curve there):

 

[kyuu]

Thanks, would the Q Meta towers be expected to have lower distortion than the Q Concerto Meta?

Quite a bit lower in the bass and mids, though the Concerto actually does a bit better in the treble.