with less expensive speakers, I guess this is especially true for coaxials: The waveguide for the tweeter is never moving too much.Our opinion on "the best sound" is a 3-way speaker
with less expensive speakers, I guess this is especially true for coaxials: The waveguide for the tweeter is never moving too much.Our opinion on "the best sound" is a 3-way speaker
I would wait for measurements as it will depend on tuning and personal preferences. I guess the R will have advantages in higher SPL while the Q in wider radiation.€1200 in EU which competes with the old R3 ( non meta) when it was on sale last year. Which would you choose?
I bought the old r3 demo last year for €895. It sounds very refined, but a bit bright (in my '59 years old' perception in the upper mids, for example with solo violins. large groups of violins on the other hand often sound amazingly beautifull and spacious) About a month ago I couldn't resist buying the r3 meta on sale for €1999 an I have no regrets. There is about nothing wrong with them ('w sub').€1200 in EU which competes with the old R3 ( non meta) when it was on sale last year. Which would you choose?
Just a curiosity on the LSX II: was metamaterial not included due to space or price constrains? Same question for using an 11th generation UniQ instead of a 12th.Hi Opal, Rõlnnbacke,
Don't worry, the new Q Meta doesn't sound as good as R Meta. Besides, the R Series has a more robust construction, nicer finishes and higher maximum output.
The aim with Q series is to bring the best sound to as many people as we can. Our opinion on "the best sound" is a 3-way speaker. This is why it was a priority to bring this architecture to the Q Meta.
It could also have to do with the bass being better in balance with the mid/treble with the Q Concerto and going deeper. And look at this:Interesting the Q Concerto Meta have lower sensitivity and max SPL than the Q3 Meta. Likely has to do with the smaller tweeter/uni-q
4" mid-woofer + .75 Inch tweeter vs 6.5" woofer +1 inch tweeter.
The Uni-Q on the concerto/towers/center i'm guessing is derived from the LS60's or maybe even the same driver. It's likely a better driver but seems SPL limited, a common complaint on the LS60's.
Maybe,It could also have to do with the bass being better in balance with the mid/treble with the Q Concerto and going deeper. And look at this:
Concerto:
Harmonic distortion (90dB, 1m)
<2% 37 Hz and above
<1% 91 Hz - 20 kHz
Q3:
Harmonic distortion (90dB, 1m)
<2% 110 Hz and above
<1% 135 Hz - 20 kHz
I find that more important; 90dB, 1m is rather loud(?).
UBR62 are around 850 MSRP, but can be ordered well below 500 Euro the pair in GermanyMaybe,
Price wise the Concerto is a direct competitor to the Elac Unifi Reference UBR62.
UBR62 are $2,000 In Canada and the Q Concerto Meta $1,800 CDNUBR62 are around 850 MSRP, but can be ordered well below 500 Euro the pair in Germany
If the sensitivity of the Q Concerto is determined by the Uni-Q driver, then all models with this 4" Uni-Q driver should have the same sensitivity. In this case (and practically all cases) sensitivity is determined by the (mid)woofer.Interesting the Q Concerto Meta have lower sensitivity and max SPL than the Q3 Meta. Likely has to do with the smaller tweeter/uni-q
4" mid-woofer + .75 Inch tweeter vs 6.5" woofer +1 inch tweeter.
The Uni-Q on the concerto/towers/center i'm guessing is derived from the LS60's or maybe even the same driver. It's likely a better driver but seems SPL limited, a common complaint on the LS60's.
it is (minus the 2-way bookshelf speakers)If the sensitivity of the Q Concerto is determined by the Uni-Q driver, then the whole lineup should have the same sensitivity. In this case (and practically all cases) sensitivity is determined by the (mid)woofer.