• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

KEF Q7 Meta vs. Polk R600

Henryk

Active Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
147
Likes
70
Hello!

I'm having a tough time deciding between these two options.

The price is the same...
They both use 6.5" drivers...
They both extend into the mid 30 Hz...
...and if you extrapolate the R500 & R700 spinorama data, they look identical there too!

Does anyone here have experience with both?
Are there any generalizations you can make with regards to the "house sound" between the two brands?
 
Hello!

I'm having a tough time deciding between these two options.

The price is the same...
They both use 6.5" drivers...
They both extend into the mid 30 Hz...
...and if you extrapolate the R500 & R700 spinorama data, they look identical there too!

Does anyone here have experience with both?
Are there any generalizations you can make with regards to the "house sound" between the two brands?
Hi, for what it is worth, I have no experience with any of Polk speakers, but I own KEF Q7 Meta.

Of note, no complete independent Spin measurement of Q7 Meta is available. However, Q11 Meta was reviewed by Erin and is mostly similar to published whitepaper measurements. It might be a stretch, but I have reasons to believe Q11 Meta is likely to be similar to Q7 Meta. As a fellow ASR member whose alias I cannot recall presently (thewas?), Q7 is very similar to Q11, save for a tad less bass extension, very slightly worst distortion, but better vertical directivity and smaller footprint, notably depth of cabinets.

If Q7 does measure similarly to Q11, then I see no reason to choose Polk, yet that is not to dismiss the latter they are more similar than different.

I would give the nod to KEF Q7 Meta for :
- smoother directivity, particularly around crossover and HF,
- less distortion, notably tweeter.

I think that both speakers measure very good, yet I see no area where Polk outshines the Kefs. Given the KEF are somewhat on the dark side with a slightly recessed treble, the Polk are likely to sound even a bit darker.

In my country, advertised price would put the Polk at 1/2 the price of the Q7. Same price, I see no reason not to choose KEF, but that is not to say that the Polks are not a wise choice.

I have owned dozens of speakers, Sonus Faber, BMR, B&W, etc and I was thoroughly impressed with the KEF's packaging, outriggers and general quality of build. They sounded very good right out of the box and tonality is preserved even if walking through the room.
 
The Polk has flat on-axis response and lots of directivity errors, including woofers beaming/cancellation, a beaming tweeter, and cancellation between mid woofer and tweeter.

In contrast, the Q7 Meta has down-sloping on-axis response and better behaved directivity, except for some mild woofer cancellation.

They're not all that similar.
 
Hi, for what it is worth, I have no experience with any of Polk speakers, but I own KEF Q7 Meta.

Of note, no complete independent Spin measurement of Q7 Meta is available. However, Q11 Meta was reviewed by Erin and is mostly similar to published whitepaper measurements. It might be a stretch, but I have reasons to believe Q11 Meta is likely to be similar to Q7 Meta. As a fellow ASR member whose alias I cannot recall presently (thewas?), Q7 is very similar to Q11, save for a tad less bass extension, very slightly worst distortion, but better vertical directivity and smaller footprint, notably depth of cabinets.

If Q7 does measure similarly to Q11, then I see no reason to choose Polk, yet that is not to dismiss the latter they are more similar than different.

I would give the nod to KEF Q7 Meta for :
- smoother directivity, particularly around crossover and HF,
- less distortion, notably tweeter.

I think that both speakers measure very good, yet I see no area where Polk outshines the Kefs. Given the KEF are somewhat on the dark side with a slightly recessed treble, the Polk are likely to sound even a bit darker.

In my country, advertised price would put the Polk at 1/2 the price of the Q7. Same price, I see no reason not to choose KEF, but that is not to say that the Polks are not a wise choice.

I have owned dozens of speakers, Sonus Faber, BMR, B&W, etc and I was thoroughly impressed with the KEF's packaging, outriggers and general quality of build. They sounded very good right out of the box and tonality is preserved even if walking through the room.

Thanks for that wonderfully informative reply!

So you say that the Q7 has LESS bass extension than the Q11? Because the KEF-provided spin measurement of the Q7 show it behaving better in the lower frequencies than Erin's spin data of the Q11.

Also, with your Q7 Metas, do you have it paired with a subwoofer?
If not, do you feel like you need one for music listening?
 
You can't just look at the on-axis or PIR and declare that the speakers are similar. If you check out the directivities (contour or polar plots) and distortion/compression characteristics, you'll see that there are substantial differences. In pretty much all regards, I'd rate the Polk R600 as an inferior speaker, personally.
 
The Polk has flat on-axis response and lots of directivity errors, including woofers beaming/cancellation, a beaming tweeter, and cancellation between mid woofer and tweeter.

In contrast, the Q7 Meta has down-sloping on-axis response and better behaved directivity, except for some mild woofer cancellation.

They're not all that similar.

You can't just look at the on-axis or PIR and declare that the speakers are similar. If you check out the directivities (contour or polar plots) and distortion/compression characteristics, you'll see that there are substantial differences. In pretty much all regards, I'd rate the Polk R600 as an inferior speaker, personally.

Ah okay, now I see what you're both saying...
Thank you for the guidance!
 
Thanks for that wonderfully informative reply!

So you say that the Q7 has LESS bass extension than the Q11? Because the KEF-provided spin measurement of the Q7 show it behaving better in the lower frequencies than Erin's spin data of the Q11.

Also, with your Q7 Metas, do you have it paired with a subwoofer?
If not, do you feel like you need one for music listening?
As for the bass extension, the comparison is not valid. As stated in the Data & Eq tab :
  • the off-axis average curves are truncated at 200Hz as this is close to the LF cut-off limit of our anechoic chamber. The on-axis LF response has been compensated using ground plane measurements carried out in free-field and is therefore valid only for that singular curve..
If both speakers were tested with the same methodology, Q7 would have a bit less extension. I trust KEF with their published specs and the Q7 are rated at 39 Hz (-6dB) and Q11 at 37 Hz (-6dB). In-room, with EQ, I get about 27 Hz (-6dB).

Given they have low distortion, I did not feel the need for a subwoofer, but you are more likely to have less seat-to-seat variation, particularly with mutiple subs.

I did not mean to imply that the Polk and Kef have the same characteristics and retrospectively, I have no way to determine if they are likely to sound darker than the Kefs, sorry if it caused confusion. I did make a guess, but not a sound one, I am afraid.

Still, I stand by what I implied earlier : the Kef seems the better of the two.
 
As for the bass extension, the comparison is not valid. As stated in the Data & Eq tab :
  • the off-axis average curves are truncated at 200Hz as this is close to the LF cut-off limit of our anechoic chamber. The on-axis LF response has been compensated using ground plane measurements carried out in free-field and is therefore valid only for that singular curve..
If both speakers were tested with the same methodology, Q7 would have a bit less extension. I trust KEF with their published specs and the Q7 are rated at 39 Hz (-6dB) and Q11 at 37 Hz (-6dB). In-room, with EQ, I get about 27 Hz (-6dB).

Given they have low distortion, I did not feel the need for a subwoofer, but you are more likely to have less seat-to-seat variation, particularly with mutiple subs.

I did not mean to imply that the Polk and Kef have the same characteristics and retrospectively, I have no way to determine if they are likely to sound darker than the Kefs, sorry if it caused confusion. I did make a guess, but not a sound one, I am afraid.

Still, I stand by what I implied earlier : the Kef seems the better of the two.

Thank you for that!
Yes, looking on KEF's site I see an in-room LF response of 26 Hz (-6 dB) for the Q11 and 28 Hz for your Q7.
Looks like your real world results are right in line!

Erin said that the Q11 much preferred to be closer to the wall (maybe 1 foot instead of the usual 3) or else the bass dropped off.
Have you found that to be the case with yours? How close to the wall did you set them up at?

Do you have a mic and some EQ results you might be willing to share?
I'd love to see it!
 
Thank you for that!
Yes, looking on KEF's site I see an in-room LF response of 26 Hz (-6 dB) for the Q11 and 28 Hz for your Q7.
Looks like your real world results are right in line!

Erin said that the Q11 much preferred to be closer to the wall (maybe 1 foot instead of the usual 3) or else the bass dropped off.
Have you found that to be the case with yours? How close to the wall did you set them up at?

Do you have a mic and some EQ results you might be willing to share?
I'd love to see it!

Thank you for that!
Yes, looking on KEF's site I see an in-room LF response of 26 Hz (-6 dB) for the Q11 and 28 Hz for your Q7.
Looks like your real world results are right in line!

Erin said that the Q11 much preferred to be closer to the wall (maybe 1 foot instead of the usual 3) or else the bass dropped off.
Have you found that to be the case with yours? How close to the wall did you set them up at?

Do you have a mic and some EQ results you might be willing to share?
I'd love to see it!
As for placement, I tend to think that it is very likely to be the same with the Q7. I have experimented a little with the port plugs and after measuring sealed, partially open and fully open, given that the distortion did not rise significantly with the ports open, I have settled with ports fully open. I have my speakers positionned about 5-6 inches from the front wall (distance of the port from the wall).

My room is a trapeze, about 6X6 meters (19X19 ft), not symmetrical and the speakers stand about nearly 1m (3 ft) up from the ground, one of the reasons I wanted coaxials.

I can share my EQ and measurements, but I doubt it will be of any value to anyone else. Measured with Crossspectrumlabs freshly calibrated Umik1 and EQed with Acourate.
Measured at around 75 dB spl at 1 Khz at the listening position. Psychoacoustic smoothing (FDW 8/8 cycles for low and high frequencies). Mildy corrected over about 1000 Hz, somewhat aggressively under. No posivite gain, only negative and of note, huge resonance at 34 Hz.

First pic is uncorrected FR measured with Acourate.
Second is corrected and also displays EQ.
Thrid is uncorrected FR measured in REW (FDW 1/6 smooting), since many users use REW. Measurements in Acourate in and REW were done in distinct sessions and slightly different positions.

My takeaway is save for the room resonances, the KEF do not need any EQ and perform very well out of the box. Do yourself a favor and the take the time to set them up symmetrically, at equal distance and you will bee greeted with a great soundstage.
\
Q7 meta 75dB SPL at 1000 Hz (FDW 8 8) raw.png
Q7 meta eqed.png
rew KF Q7 meta raw.jpg
 
Last edited:
As for placement, I tend to think that it is very likely to be the same with the Q7. I have experimented a little with the port plugs and after measuring sealed, partially open and fully open, given that the distortion did not rise significantly with the ports open, I have settled with ports fully open. I have my speakers positionned about 5-6 inches from the front wall (distance of the port from the wall).

My room is a trapeze, about 6X6 meters (19X19 ft), not symmetrical and the speakers stand about nearly 1m (3 ft) up from the ground, one of the reasons I wanted coaxials.

I can share my EQ and measurements, but I doubt it will be of any value to anyone else. Measured with Crossspectrumlabs freshly calibrated Umik1 and EQed with Acourate.
Measured at around 75 dB spl at 1 Khz at the listening position. Psychoacoustic smoothing (FDW 8/8 cycles for low and high frequencies). Mildy corrected over about 1000 Hz, somewhat aggressively under. No posivite gain, only negative and of note, huge resonance at 34 Hz.

First pic is uncorrected FR measured with Acourate.
Second is corrected and also displays EQ.
Thrid is uncorrected FR measured in REW (FDW 1/6 smooting), since many users use REW. Measurements in Acourate in and REW were done in distinct sessions and slightly different positions.

My takeaway is save for the room resonances, the KEF do not need any EQ and perform very well out of the box. Do yourself a favor and the take the time to set them up symmetrically, at equal distance and you will bee greeted with a great soundstage.
\View attachment 468215View attachment 468216View attachment 468219

Thanks for all the info - they look killer!

Do they prefer serious wattage?
What sort of amplifier are you using to power e'm?
 
Their impedance dip a bit low and you're probably best pairing them with an amp that does well with that metric. Still, they are not that demanding, I humbly think.

I have settled for a 3eaudio A7 stereo amp with which I am very happy. If it weren't for my aggressive take on eq, I could have probably settled for a 3eaudio A5.

I think you could settle for almost any decent amplifier and be fine. If I am not mistaken, most well designed Class D amps cope well with low impedance load.

Prior to the A7, I was driving them with a Yamaha A-S801 which was equally fine. I tend to think that all amplifiers sound the same unless they are clipping...
 
Their impedance dip a bit low and you're probably best pairing them with an amp that does well with that metric. Still, they are not that demanding, I humbly think.

I have settled for a 3eaudio A7 stereo amp with which I am very happy. If it weren't for my aggressive take on eq, I could have probably settled for a 3eaudio A5.

I think you could settle for almost any decent amplifier and be fine. If I am not mistaken, most well designed Class D amps cope well with low impedance load.

Prior to the A7, I was driving them with a Yamaha A-S801 which was equally fine. I tend to think that all amplifiers sound the same unless they are clipping...

Yeah that 3e amp seems to be super popular around here!

Did you audition the Q11 Meta too?
Any particular you reason you went with the Q7 over it?
 
No experience with the Q11. Looking at the data and published specs, the Q11 provide a a few more Hz down low, but cabinets are bigger, particularly depthwise and as @thewas cleverly highlighted, the Q11 with their three woofers feature not as smooth vertical directivity as the Q7 with their two woofers. Since I am not seated on axis, it was particularly relevant for me.

On paper, the Q11 have better distortion, but I seriously doubt I would be able to assess this myself with musical content.

Given they are 1.5 the price of the Q7, it was an easy decision.

When I compared the Q7 spin to almost any of the R series, it became even clearer they were the ones that fit the bill.
They may not be a hidden gem, but they certainly bring a lot for the money.

-Uniform directivity, both horizontal AND vertical directivity, (I would have preferred a little wider, but I am nitpicking here, few speakers have such good di),
(Pure speculation on my part, but I think that Kef really nailed it with the sound power response.) = ability to EQ.
-Great bass extension,
-Very low distortion,
-Not huge footprint, not ugly,
-Not a crazy load (a few comes to mind, but just for the fun of it, Wilson!),
-Not crazy money.

There are better measuring speakers, some that go deeper, others with my ideal dispersion pattern, better FR, but regardless of price, say under 8kUS$, none that I would prefer on paper.
 
No experience with the Q11. Looking at the data and published specs, the Q11 provide a a few more Hz down low, but cabinets are bigger, particularly depthwise and as @thewas cleverly highlighted, the Q11 with their three woofers feature not as smooth vertical directivity as the Q7 with their two woofers. Since I am not seated on axis, it was particularly relevant for me.

On paper, the Q11 have better distortion, but I seriously doubt I would be able to assess this myself with musical content.

Given they are 1.5 the price of the Q7, it was an easy decision.

When I compared the Q7 spin to almost any of the R series, it became even clearer they were the ones that fit the bill.
They may not be a hidden gem, but they certainly bring a lot for the money.

-Uniform directivity, both horizontal AND vertical directivity, (I would have preferred a little wider, but I am nitpicking here, few speakers have such good di),
(Pure speculation on my part, but I think that Kef really nailed it with the sound power response.) = ability to EQ.
-Great bass extension,
-Very low distortion,
-Not huge footprint, not ugly,
-Not a crazy load (a few comes to mind, but just for the fun of it, Wilson!),
-Not crazy money.

There are better measuring speakers, some that go deeper, others with my ideal dispersion pattern, better FR, but regardless of price, say under 8kUS$, none that I would prefer on paper.

Yep... I've come to the same conclusion too.
I can't find anything for the money that performs nearly as well!
 
Nessuna esperienza con il Q11. Guardando i dati e le specifiche pubblicate, i Q11 offrono qualche Hz in più in basso, ma i cabinet sono più grandi, soprattutto in profondità e, come @thewas ha abilmente sottolineato, i Q11 con i loro tre woofer non presentano una direttività verticale così fluida come i Q7 con i loro due woofer. Dato che non sono seduto in asse, questo aspetto è stato particolarmente rilevante per me.

Sulla carta, le Q11 hanno una distorsione migliore, ma dubito fortemente che sarei in grado di valutarla personalmente con contenuti musicali.

Considerando che costano 1,5 volte di più della Q7, è stata una decisione facile.

Confrontando la Q7 con quasi tutti i modelli della serie R, mi è diventato ancora più chiaro che erano quelli adatti.
Forse non sono un tesoro nascosto, ma sicuramente valgono molto per il loro prezzo.

- Direttività uniforme, sia orizzontale che verticale (avrei preferito un po' più ampia, ma sto cercando il pelo nell'uovo, pochi altoparlanti hanno una direttività così buona),
(Pura speculazione da parte mia, ma credo che Kef abbia davvero centrato il punto con la risposta in potenza del suono.) = capacità di equalizzazione.
-Ottima estensione dei bassi,
-Distorsione molto bassa,
-Non è un ingombro enorme, non è brutto,
-Non un carico pazzesco (mi vengono in mente un paio di cose, ma solo per il gusto di farlo, Wilson!),
-Non soldi folli.

Ci sono diffusiri con misure migliori, alcuni più profondi, altri con il mio schema di dispersione ideale, FR migliore, ma a prescindere dal prezzo, diciamo sotto gli 8.000 dollari USA, non ce n'è nessuno che preferirei sulla carta.
Posso chiederti cosa pensi che la Q7 sia migliore rispetto alla serie R? Sono indeciso tra la Q7 Meta e la R3 Meta. Grazie.
 
Erin did review and measure both R100 and R200 and he did find some trouble at the xover between the mid and the tweeter.



 
Posso chiederti cosa pensi che la Q7 sia migliore rispetto alla serie R? Sono indeciso tra la Q7 Meta e la R3 Meta. Grazie.
Both are very good speakers, but if you can accommodate for the larger Q7, I do not see any area where the R3 Meta have the upside.

If you are space limited, I would opt for the R3 non meta instead of the R3 meta.

On-axis, the R3 meta are more linear, but that is not very relevant as for as audibility is concerned...

P.S. If I may kindly ask, would you please kindly post in English? I am a native French speaker myself ;)
 
Last edited:
I went to Best Buy to listen to the Q11 Meta over the weekend. The problem with the speakers is the bass a bit too loose. It lacks speed. I think there is some store energy on the bass cabinet that makes the bass somewhat blurry. Maybe they use high Qt bass drivers.
 
Bass sound is highly room dependent.
 
The problem isn't just that it's room dependent, but speakers like the Q11 that have good response down low will be putting more energy into room modes and will therefore subjectively sound "looser". It's the classic ported vs sealed thing, where people think sealed designs are "tighter" when really they just have less bass output (all other things being equal) and therefore don't activate room modes to the same extent.

The correct solution is to use room correction of some flavor to tame the room modes, not to choose a speaker with less bass output.
 
Back
Top Bottom