Kef R Meta Series Release

[exm]

I'm really a fan of coaxial speakers and always liked Kef speakers. My next speakers will very likely be the R3 Meta.

I just wonder what difference people would hear between the R3 Meta and Reference 1 Meta.

The Reference has a deeper cabinet, 30hz higher crossover point than the R3 and a higher quality and stronger build.
Both have about the same frequency response, really low distortion and about the same bass extension.
Will the Reference 1 Meta still sound better? What am I missing?

I have a lot of experience with Kef speakers. In the Reference Series they use much better drivers, and the cabinets are also build/tuned differently. If you care about crossover quality differences (I don't), there's also that one. I have personally tested the R11, R900 (predecessor of R11) and Reference 5 and I can tell you there are very clear audible difference. The Reference 5s are night-and-day better than either one.

I have tried the R3 and R3 Meta (my rear surrounds) and I feel that the R3 Meta are more open compared to the non-Meta. Does that make the R Meta better than the non-Meta Reference? I guess I would need to try the Meta R11s vs my non-Meta Reference 5s. But this I can tell you: the Reference 5s have a much tighter and deeper LF over the R11s.

 

[goat76]

The Reference has a deeper cabinet, 30hz higher crossover point than the R3 and a higher quality and stronger build.
Both have about the same frequency response, really low distortion and about the same bass extension.
Will the Reference 1 Meta still sound better? What am I missing?

The part where you actually listen to the speakers perhaps?

 

[fineMen]

... cabinets are also build/tuned differently. ... night-and-day better than either one.
... the Reference 5s have a much tighter and deeper LF over the R11s.

Could you back this up with some data, e/g distortion vs/ amplitude or so? I'm only asking, because if that was true KEF would chose on purpose a lesser solution for the standard range, but charge 8-times for the correct one? Enclosure tuning is nothing mysterious today, especially if one makes the drivers in house. Do you think we've got a case here?

 

[dogmamann]

If you go purely by measurements you can probably get something a lot cheaper than the R3 Meta that measures better.

So you are suggesting that there is something beyond measurements that is perceivable ?

 

[dogmamann]

The part where you actually listen to the speakers perhaps?

Pointless unless you listen it at your home. .

 

[dogmamann]

I have a lot of experience with Kef speakers. In the Reference Series they use much better drivers, and the cabinets are also build/tuned differently. If you care about crossover quality differences (I don't), there's also that one. I have personally tested the R11, R900 (predecessor of R11) and Reference 5 and I can tell you there are very clear audible difference. The Reference 5s are night-and-day better than either one.

I have tried the R3 and R3 Meta (my rear surrounds) and I feel that the R3 Meta are more open compared to the non-Meta. Does that make the R Meta better than the non-Meta Reference? I guess I would need to try the Meta R11s vs my non-Meta Reference 5s. But this I can tell you: the Reference 5s have a much tighter and deeper LF over the R11s.

From graphs reference 5s OG has more bass extension and nothing more. Add subs to R3s it will sound the same or even better with bass. Aesthetically references are better, it’s worth the 5 -6 times thr money, if that’s whT you are looking from it.

 

[Music707]

I'm really a fan of coaxial speakers and always liked Kef speakers. My next speakers will very likely be the R3 Meta.

I just wonder what difference people would hear between the R3 Meta and Reference 1 Meta.

The Reference has a deeper cabinet, 30hz higher crossover point than the R3 and a higher quality and stronger build.
Both have about the same frequency response, really low distortion and about the same bass extension.
Will the Reference 1 Meta still sound better? What am I missing?

Just as an idea where the Reference 1 Meta still might show superiority I like to quote Erin's review of the Reference 1 Meta:

• One of the most 3-D soundstages I have heard to date (only beat thus far by a set of $13k monitors using a concentric driver). And to me, this is the feature that needs to be recognized. This speaker is very EQ’able so if you don’t like the highs on a song, you can tweak it to your liking. Midrange, bass, etc. But you can never correct for a speaker’s radiation pattern. In other words, you can’t make a speaker have such a 3-D soundstage if it doesn’t already have it. This speaker does. And that’s the selling point to me.

Of course, we need more information about the R3 meta to conclude.

 

[exm]

Could you back this up with some data, e/g distortion vs/ amplitude or so? I'm only asking, because if that was true KEF would chose on purpose a lesser solution for the standard range, but charge 8-times for the correct one? Enclosure tuning is nothing mysterious today, especially if one makes the drivers in house. Do you think we've got a case here?

The Reference Series uses a neodymium, more powerful, low distortion motor including larger neo magnets, more driver venting, better ports and more cabinet bracing. The R series uses a relatively simple ferrite magnet system.

Is it worth the premium? Probably not. But why do people buy Ferrari's instead of Corvettes?

 

[bo_knows]

The Reference Series uses a neodymium, more powerful, low distortion motor including larger neo magnets, more driver venting, better ports and more cabinet bracing. The R series uses a relatively simple ferrite magnet system.

Is it worth the premium? Probably not. But why do people buy Ferrari's instead of Corvettes?

"But why do people buy Ferraris instead of Corvettes?" IMHO, that's not a good example. Apple for oranges comparison. If you want to use Ferrari, a better example would be why people buy Ferrari F458 Speciale vs F458 Italia.

 

[exm]

"But why do people buy Ferraris instead of Corvettes?" IMHO, that's not a good example. Apple for oranges comparison. If you want to use Ferrari, a better example would be why people buy Ferrari F458 Speciale vs F458 Italia.

Some Corvette's perform better than Ferrari's, so why are you buying a sports car? Pure for the performance numbers or are there other factors in play? And is that worth the premium? My point is that a $22k Ref 5 Meta isn't realistically worth triple the price of a R11 Meta purely based on performance numbers.

 

[goat76]

Pointless unless you listen it at your home. .

Nope, it's not pointless. It works perfectly well to compare two different speakers and hear the main differences in their sound characteristics in an acoustically well-behaved demo room.

With your reasoning you must think that all the listening tests Toole and his team did at Harman must have been totally pointless too. I mean, if all the conclusions they made from those listening test was completely bound to that particular room alone, they would probably have come to different conclusions if they used another room. Is that what you think?

 

[fineMen]

The Reference Series uses a neodymium, more powerful, low distortion motor including larger neo magnets, more driver venting, better ports and more cabinet bracing. The R series uses a relatively simple ferrite magnet system.

Is it worth the premium? Probably not. But why do people buy Ferrari's instead of Corvettes?

O/k, thanks. But I was asking for the outcome, while I for sure believe that different things went in. If I read between the lines, data isn't available. The Ferrari is some good enough example. Do you really think that its kind is adorable, despite the times only halfway successful effort? The first pre-muskian Tesla took over hands down, while being, listen, easy to the ears ;-) Driven by smart phone batteries.

Not the least, if there's some extra need, a sub would not only help with what you said, but with room modes also as a sidekick. The Tesla approach if you will.

 

[exm]

O/k, thanks. But I was asking for the outcome, while I for sure believe that different things went in. If I read between the lines, data isn't available. The Ferrari is some good enough example. Do you really think that its kind is adorable, despite the times only halfway successful effort? The first pre-muskian Tesla took over hands down, while being, listen, easy to the ears ;-) Driven by smart phone batteries.

Not the least, if there's some extra need, a sub would not only help with what you said, but with room modes also as a sidekick. The Tesla approach if you will.

An argument can be made that the Tesla is a better car. But I want to betcha that you still would get that Ferrari instead of you could.

 

[juliangst]

Speakers like the Reference and R series have very wide horizontal dispersion which can make them sound a lot wider than narrow dispersion speakers due to the side wall reflections.
If you have 20cm absorption on all side walls they might sound pretty similar though because most of those side reflections are gone.

But because the R and Reference are so similar in most regards I can't think of any meaningful improvement the Reference would offer.

It's like comparing a regular S Class to the Maybach S Class. Better quality materials and finish but the driving performance is pretty much the same.

 

[fineMen]

An argument can be made that the Tesla is a better car. But I want to betcha that you still would get that Ferrari instead of you could.

Nope. Got close to one in Italy once like 60 feet away, motor running, thingy roaring, crazy noise in unimaginable proportion to the speed. Frankly spoken, ... won't say that.

So, the metaphor doesn't fit finally. I would take a "reference" as a gift, but I would lose somehow what I like with KEF. Reasonable engineering namely ;-)

Please prove me wrong with actual comparative data, outcome wise.

 

[Descartes]

Some Corvette's perform better than Ferrari's, so why are you buying a sports car? Pure for the performance numbers or are there other factors in play? And is that worth the premium? My point is that a $22k Ref 5 Meta isn't realistically worth triple the price of a R11 Meta purely based on performance numbers.

How about the blade 2 meta are they really worth $28,000?

 

[dogmamann]

Nope, it's not pointless. It works perfectly well to compare two different speakers and hear the main differences in their sound characteristics in an acoustically well-behaved demo room.

With your reasoning you must think that all the listening tests Toole and his team did at Harman must have been totally pointless too. I mean, if all the conclusions they made from those listening test was completely bound to that particular room alone, they would probably have come to different conclusions if they used another room. Is that what you think?

Dr. Toole’s experimental setup is a defined environment, and based on the studies now we know that we can judge speakers based on measurements. Same cannot be said about a random demo room.

 

[exm]

How about the blade 2 meta are they really worth $28,000?

Not to me. However, I bought my Reference 5s used right around the price for a new R11 since they had 2 damaged drivers which I promptly replaced. I don’t want to pay 5 figures for speakers, but I feel I got a steal. The difference between the Ref and R speakers (besides better bass extension) is very clear - now granted, my only Meta comparison is the R3 Meta I own.

I did try the R3 Meta as fronts and I am really missing the details and openness compared with the non-Meta Reference. To me, the non-Meta Reference UniQ is better than the R Meta UniQ.

Let’s not forget that the Reference driver is of much higher quality and that the “Meta” changes are really basically a disc behind the tweeter. I still like the Reference materials better.

Anyway!

 

[dogmamann]

The Reference Series uses a neodymium, more powerful, low distortion motor including larger neo magnets, more driver venting, better ports and more cabinet bracing. The R series uses a relatively simple ferrite magnet system.

Is it worth the premium? Probably not. But why do people buy Ferrari's instead of Corvettes?

Doesn’t matter what is in there inside if it doesn’t make any improvement with measurements. Imo, kefs r series is the point at which we can stop looking at if performance is our goal. Beyond this point, it’s all about better build quality, aesthetics and getting into that elite club feeling after reading the company’s own marketing material ! If R Series has 9/10 in terms of price to performance for the old references it would be 2/10. Reference meta may be 5/10 as it’s a way better speaker than the old ones.

 

[dogmamann]

Not to me. However, I bought my Reference 5s used right around the price for a new R11 since they had 2 damaged drivers which I promptly replaced. I don’t want to pay 5 figures for speakers, but I feel I got a steal. The difference between the Ref and R speakers (besides better bass extension) is very clear - now granted, my only Meta comparison is the R3 Meta I own.

I did try the R3 Meta as fronts and I am really missing the details and openness compared with the non-Meta Reference. To me, the non-Meta Reference UniQ is better than the R Meta UniQ.

Let’s not forget that the Reference driver is of much higher quality and that the “Meta” changes are really basically a disc behind the tweeter. I still like the Reference materials better.

Anyway!

Besides bass extension they are the same. Show in the graphs otherwise