Kef R Meta Series Release

[Descartes]

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!

What is the reference material compared to the R meta series?

 

[goat76]

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.

The demo rooms I visit at my local store are not "random rooms" to me. I have visited those same rooms for the last 20 years or so, and I have listened to the same speakers both in those rooms and in my own listening room to know that the basic sound characteristics of the speakers remain the same.

Toole's listening tests would be a complete waste of time if all speakers sounded completely different from one room to the other. Yes, the bass response will be the thing that will differ the most between different rooms, but the overall sound characteristics of the speakers will not change as much as you seem to think.

 

[fineMen]

Doesn’t matter what is in there inside if it doesn’t make any improvement with measurements.

I think this thread has a video presentation on the 'meta' development linked in. I watched it and came to some conclusion: #1,078

If the phase modulation aka Doppler intermodulation is real, or better to say, if it transforms into amplitude modulation by room interaction as the well reknown S.Linkwitz strongly suggested, and others too, then a lot of recent efforts in driver development is nearly useless. It all addresses excursion capability, but the remaining problems are (would be) swamped by phase modulation => AM anyway.

I don't accuse anybody to lie about the issue, because in the studio with well controlled room acoustics the prob is for sure mitigated, same with big venues like concert halls with assisted acoustics. But we poor guys at our humble homes in double use as top tier hifi studio and living space alike, what would we do about it?

Alas, despite mentioning the great S. Linkwitz, giving all the guidance needed I could not talk people into a single simple test which is visiting a web site and listen to a 5 seconds piece twice. So what is it with spending 28k on speakers and writing about it all the time? Thanks a lot for yours ...

... nevertheless, still happy

For instance the KEF uniQ could only do so much. Doppler induced AM would rule at some amplitude, given the cross-over of xy Hertz low combined with ab Hertz high, even in the Blade or the R11 (ref/) etc. It's the physics of moving sound sources, it can be calculated, it is inherent to the dynamic driver. Now it comes to me that the AMT shouldn't have it ...

 

[WalkingInTheRain]

Pardon my ignorance, but the horizontal graph of these is much worse than the 8030C I recently purchased. Do KEF owners not prefer neutral sound? What is the attraction of this? I feel like there is some reason, hopefully logic, that people are using to pay many times than 8030Cs. Do these sound better than 8030Cs despite dropping off under 100Hz?

 

[juliangst]

Some people complained about hiss of the 8030c. This disqualifies them completly for me. A state of the art system shouldn't have any noise imho

 

[fineMen]

Pardon my ignorance, but the horizontal graph ... I feel like there is some reason, hopefully logic, that people ... despite dropping off under 100Hz?

The resolution to your problem is this:

The "eye". The owner of a Genelec 8030C doesn't experience the exacting soundstage and natural imaging of a true audiophile speaker system. What you ignore is the vertical, as opposed to the horizontal "graph" as you put it. I think this logic straightens things out.

Additionally, as @juliangst already mentioned, what to expect from a package that for some quite pedestrian 700$/pc sports a trade mark aluminim enclosure, and a Genelec badge targeted at the pro/ market as kind of 'proof of work'? The amp in this powered speaker cannot fit into the tiny can other than being smaller than all reasonable choices. You're left with a not so reasonable choice, logically.

Foremost, the Genelec is a two way not only dismissing the predominantly featured coaxial driver. As a two way, as opposed to a three-way with many real Genelecs, the little driver will distort heavily with intermodulation which on some illogical grounds, at least I feel it so, is ignored unreasonably. See my post #1,103 (right before your's). This won't come handy especially in case the extension towards the bass doesn't drop off. As is reported for the Genelec.

Needless to say that KEF avoids the above mentioned problems altogether, so there is no reason in asking KEF for a solution.
.

 

[jonfitch]

I’m not at home for the next week, so all I have is this screenshot of Dirac:
View attachment 277923

Here's what mine look like:

 

[WalkingInTheRain]

Some people complained about hiss of the 8030c. This disqualifies them completly for me. A state of the art system shouldn't have any noise imho

I was very concerned about that too and almost went with Neuman but I haven't noticed any hiss in the several months of ownership.

The resolution to your problem is this:

View attachment 278192

The "eye". The owner of a Genelec 8030C doesn't experience the exacting soundstage and natural imaging of a true audiophile speaker system. What you ignore is the vertical, as opposed to the horizontal "graph" as you put it. I think this logic straightens things out.

Additionally, as @juliangst already mentioned, what to expect from a package that for some quite pedestrian 700$/pc sports a trade mark aluminim enclosure, and a Genelec badge targeted at the pro/ market as kind of 'proof of work'? The amp in this powered speaker cannot fit into the tiny can other than being smaller than all reasonable choices. You're left with a not so reasonable choice, logically.

Foremost, the Genelec is a two way not only dismissing the predominantly featured coaxial driver. As a two way, as opposed to a three-way with many real Genelecs, the little driver will distort heavily with intermodulation which on some illogical grounds, at least I feel it so, is ignored unreasonably. See my post #1,103 (right before your's). This won't come handy especially in case the extension towards the bass doesn't drop off. As is reported for the Genelec.

Needless to say that KEF avoids the above mentioned problems altogether, so there is no reason in asking KEF for a solution.
.

Thank you for the feedback. I can afford the KEF R Meta or Genelec 8341s but for my first system I went with the 8030Cs as I would inevitably learn more about sound and make the correct choice (hoping) when ready to buy the next set. Luckily with the stands I purchased, the 8030Cs are at ear level to be in its most ideal position. Thanks for your response and pointing the "eye" out and why it is significant.

 

[dogmamann]

Pardon my ignorance, but the horizontal graph of these is much worse than the 8030C I recently purchased. Do KEF owners not prefer neutral sound? What is the attraction of this? I feel like there is some reason, hopefully logic, that people are using to pay many times than 8030Cs. Do these sound better than 8030Cs despite dropping off under 100Hz?

I never undertood this too. Most KEF fanboys attack with teeth and nails, when other speaker brands have a little bit of hump or dip in their frequency response here. When it comes to KEF, they are completely ok with a sloping on axis response. When you look at 100HZ and 16Hz some speakers have a difference of 6DB and they say it’s nice that way! I understand off axis dip, but why would anyone need a on axis sloping response ! it means without eq there is no way to get a flat response out of them, which is the same with many other speakers..

 

[fineMen]

Thanks for your response and pointing the "eye" out and why it is significant.

Sure, or dare I say, my reply was, in parts, spiced with a bit bitternis. Like a good ol' Indian beer shall be. But facts are facts. I'm not a fan of the 'reference' series either, and again I would like to see more people investigating new frontiers as S.Linkwitz put it. I'm confident that the Doppler to AM transformation exists, which renders indismissible excellence on KEF's side a bit stubborn, if kept on that well acknowledged traditional paths?

 

[fineMen]

Here's what mine look like:
<in-room frequency responses R3 vs/ R3 MAT>

From my very recent purchase of the R3s I've learned that the pedestrian Rs are better used with the grilles attached. 1kHz goes up, 6kHz goes down. I've presumably found the reason for the 1kHz pothole, and an additional 2,3kHz dip that for some highly suspicious root cause doesn't appear in the Klippel's direct sound! With some confidence it is the edge diffraction at the enclosure interfering with the direct sound from the coax-driver.

I'm a fanboy actually. The move to coax was the logical way to go when no one saw the prob with multi-way, or better to say every other blatantly ignored it. See the tedious explanations and exemplifications in KEF's 'technical bulletin' regarding their very early Calinda model, steering the main listening axis with precise textbook Butterwoth-3 filters pp. They did it the hard way, incrementally, and succeeded gloriously. Next stop: investigate Doppler--in real person's reflective environment.

 

[Ciobi69]

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

Sometimes i find the old blade 1/2 for 10.000 used ,i think it's not worth it...

 

[dogmamann]

Sometimes i find the old blade 1/2 for 10.000 used ,i think it's not worth it...

Only R series(old one) and ls50 meta is rightly priced for what it does. Rest is very little audible improvement for way too much money more. That being said, I would pick up a discontinued Reference 3 over R11 meta only not to bother if the shadow ring is in the right place or not, if offered for the same money. R11 meta is a better speaker, but I don’t want to do any DIY on a speaker costing 6.5k to make sure it sounds right. Some time back I heard the older R11 against the Reference 3 in the same room and bass on the R11 has easily more audible extension. i couldn’t hear any improvement on the older References on the same amp playing the same songs. At this point, i am sure every R Series user is really lucky to have something so much state of the art at that price. If without any bias of the brand, for anyone who is looking for a better performing speaker above the R Series, References are not the serious upgrade in sound. May be blades or another brand altogether

 

[Vacceo]

From my very recent purchase of the R3s I've learned that the pedestrian Rs are better used with the grilles attached. 1kHz goes up, 6kHz goes down. I've presumably found the reason for the 1kHz pothole, and an additional 2,3kHz dip that for some highly suspicious root cause doesn't appear in the Klippel's direct sound! With some confidence it is the edge diffraction at the enclosure interfering with the direct sound from the coax-driver.

I'm a fanboy actually. The move to coax was the logical way to go when no one saw the prob with multi-way, or better to say every other blatantly ignored it. See the tedious explanations and exemplifications in KEF's 'technical bulletin' regarding their very early Calinda model, steering the main listening axis with precise textbook Butterwoth-3 filters pp. They did it the hard way, incrementally, and succeeded gloriously. Next stop: investigate Doppler--in real person's reflective environment.

Would you say a curves front would help reduce the difraction?

 

[fineMen]

Would you say a curves front would help reduce the difraction?

Could you derive a pattern from the collection of previous measurements provided on this board. Or did you try yourself already?

 

[exm]

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

Sure, I value your opinion but you haven't heard the speakers side-by-side in real life. I have.

 

[WalkingInTheRain]

Sure, or dare I say, my reply was, in parts, spiced with a bit bitternis. Like a good ol' Indian beer shall be. But facts are facts. I'm not a fan of the 'reference' series either, and again I would like to see more people investigating new frontiers as S.Linkwitz put it. I'm confident that the Doppler to AM transformation exists, which renders indismissible excellence on KEF's side a bit stubborn, if kept on that well acknowledged traditional paths?

I do prefer your spicy tone, as it is more direct path to answers I'm seeking. I am seeing KEF are Hi-Fi speakers according to the products webpage, and I'm more interested in self-powered monitors. I see no reason buying KEF R3 Meta or similar over 8341As unless the KEF 6dB drop in base under 100Hz and less flat overall frequency response is preferred over a flat frequency response. If there is a reason for preferring that large drop and unevenness outside of fanboyism, I would like to understand.

 

[dogmamann]

Sure, I value your opinion but you haven't heard the speakers side-by-side in real life. I have.

I have heard R11 and Reference 3 side by side. Again it’s not necessary, graphs have the whole story. Again people’s biases has no value over real measurements.

 

[Steve Dallas]

I do prefer your spicy tone, as it is more direct path to answers I'm seeking. I am seeing KEF are Hi-Fi speakers according to the products webpage, and I'm more interested in self-powered monitors. I see no reason buying KEF R3 Meta or similar over 8341As unless the KEF 6dB drop in base under 100Hz and less flat overall frequency response is preferred over a flat frequency response. If there is a reason for preferring that large drop and unevenness outside of fanboyism, I would like to understand.

The drop in bass assumes boundary gain will be in play in a typical room, which is a sound assumption. My R3s have plenty of bass SPL.

 

[exm]

I have heard R11 and Reference 3 side by side. Again it’s not necessary, graphs have the whole story. Again people’s biases has no value over real measurements.

I have heard the R11 vs R900 vs Reference 5 and I had a very convincing motive to really like the R900 ($$$), which I prefer over the R11. It wasn't even close.