• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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 R Meta Series Release

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.
Show the differences in measurements and that’s what only matters here. R900 is not a good measuring speaker. So it’s not worth anything now, but between reference 5 and r11 only bass is better on reference 5.

The graphs of both are similar, or r11 is eq ready(in terms of distortion and directivity) to match the reference 5.

If you think it’s not the case, show it with measurements how it’s really superior.
 
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 ...
You decide. The criterium of flat is fulfilled with R3 MAT and presumably the ref/ series. With the elder R3 I assume a more catchy show room sound was prefered. The latter can be fixed with an e/q. Same holds true for the bass.

In general, to ask for top tier quality but not investing some brains to adjust especially the bass is a contradiction in itself. Such a mindset wouldn't gain anything. But wait, it is so common. The bass is actually amplified by room gain a lot. I tested it at home to flat maybe even too much bass, measured, which doesn't take away from the previous argument, though.

Think I mentioned it before, consider a sub to not only amplify bass, but target room resonances also. Take two. It does miracles, boy, there is some heft in the upper bass / lower mids which otherwise is consumed by too much af an excursion.
 
Show the differences in measurements and that’s what only matters here. R900 is not a good measuring speaker. So it’s not worth anything now, but between reference 5 and r11 only bass is better on reference 5.

The graphs of both are similar, or r11 is eq ready(in terms of distortion and directivity) to match the reference 5.

If you think it’s not the case, show it with measurements how it’s really superior.

I understand this is ASR, all about science and graphs. Got it. But I don't believe for one second you compare speakers based on graphs. For example, you state that the R900 is not a good measuring speaker. I can tell you, that I greatly prefer the R900 over the R11. So what do the number mean?
 
Could you derive a pattern from the collection of previous measurements provided on this board. Or did you try yourself already?
Just pure curiosity. It seems that other KEF speakers have a mitigated difraction due to be narrower (LS60) or curved (Blade).
 
Just found out something interesting about the R Meta range.

For the R3 Meta they claim
<1% THD from 73 Hz and higher
<0,5% THD from 90Hz-20KHz

While the R7 Meta says
<1% THD from 76 Hz and higher
<0,5% THD from 110Hz-20KHz

Which means that the smallers speakers have less distortion.

The only reason I can think of that would explain this is the crossover point.
R7 Meta are crossed over at 400Hz while R3 Meta are crossed over at 420Hz which means that the R3's midrange driver has to do 'less work'.

The max SPL of the R7 is 111dB while for the R3 it's 110dB. The R7 also is 1dB more sensitive.
The R7 obviously go a little bit deeper.

With all of this considered I find it hard to justify spending 2800€ more on the R7. I could get two nice subs and a Dirac Bass Control package for that price difference alone.
 
I understand this is ASR, all about science and graphs. Got it. But I don't believe for one second you compare speakers based on graphs. For example, you state that the R900 is not a good measuring speaker. I can tell you, that I greatly prefer the R900 over the R11. So what do the number mean?
Better Numbers still means which is more accurate in terms of sound production, and you value your preferred choice of imperfection over well engineered sound reproduction.
 
Better Numbers still means which is more accurate in terms of sound production, and you value your preferred choice of imperfection over well engineered sound reproduction.
C'mon, I'm just listening to Animals As Leaders like 20dB below my usual listening loudness, and all the penetration is just there. Had a esoteric experience when "Carpet Crawlers" of Genesis was revealed to consist mainly of overlayed voices in different echo chambers, the subdued bongos introducing P. Collins as the upcoming substitute ... in all relaxation as if it were nothing. Using copper clad aluminium wires as speaker cables, of questionable oxidation status for starters.

Music is communication, sender vs/ receiver.

This may shock you (outdated R3):
1681167672846.png

After some e/q +/- 1dB or so with the grilles attached, because I like the Bauhaus looks. That bad it is! (beware, the measurment mike used costs 1,50 dollars, hence is considered unobtainable)

The engineer knows what it means to say "Good enough." You could rely your life on it, period.

Anyway, I've got no response to my humble query to explore Doppler aka phase modulation (new frontiers) a bit further, taking the wide spread publicity of the internet to some advantage. Nope, people are worried about what they already know. That's not essentially scientific :p

I'm currently running out of gurkins. Let's discuss my next purchase ;)
 
C'mon, I'm just listening to Animals As Leaders like 20dB below my usual listening loudness, and all the penetration is just there.

I just discovered Animals As Leaders! Love their videos and I grabbed their latest album. Goodness it rawks!!!
 
Just found out something interesting about the R Meta range.

For the R3 Meta they claim


While the R7 Meta says


Which means that the smallers speakers have less distortion.

The only reason I can think of that would explain this is the crossover point.
R7 Meta are crossed over at 400Hz while R3 Meta are crossed over at 420Hz which means that the R3's midrange driver has to do 'less work'.

The max SPL of the R7 is 111dB while for the R3 it's 110dB. The R7 also is 1dB more sensitive.
The R7 obviously go a little bit deeper.

With all of this considered I find it hard to justify spending 2800€ more on the R7. I could get two nice subs and a Dirac Bass Control package for that price difference alone.

I'm confused with your explanation.
I terms of THD R3 is better that R7 in frequency region 90-110Hz. It is all in woofer area so in theory R7 should be better as the crossover point is lower (400 Hz vs 420Hz in R3). That means the woofer in R7 has less work but still it is a bit worse in THD.

R11 (crossover points 330 Hz, 2.5 kHz) wins with R3 and R7:
<1% 33 Hz and above
<0.5% 80 Hz - 20 kHz

It doesn't fit the pattern you're suggesting...
 
I'm confused with your explanation.
I terms of THD R3 is better that R7 in frequency region 90-110Hz. It is all in woofer area so in theory R7 should be better as the crossover point is lower (400 Hz vs 420Hz in R3). That means the woofer in R7 has less work but still it is a bit worse in THD.

R11 (crossover points 330 Hz, 2.5 kHz) wins with R3 and R7:


It doesn't fit the pattern you're suggesting...
Makes sense but how would you explain the lower THD of the R3?
 
picking nits, half a db distortion over a narrow band that a lot will xover to a sub anyhow. Listening to members argue weather or not the meta is worth the upgrade? Is spending for the reference worth what the R and soon R meta already offer? I started a thread on this forum asking if resolution is real since there's no measurement for it. The thread is getting unsurprising reply's with the objective obviously denying resolution as a real think. If you fall into the camp that doesn't really 'believe' in soundstage, imaging and resolution or, if your system's mainly HT and gaming the diminishing returns aren't worth it. If 2 channel Hi rez is important and money is secondary I can say go to any shop and listen to their hi end room, some of us have our lives changed then and there, others walk right out not caring about the sound quality. Music comes to life in my listening room and I don't show it to anybody. For the resolution deniers they don't hurt my feelings and there's no motivation for me to convince them, but we learn who we're talking to and can keep things civil understanding how much value (especially on this forum)the person we're talking to puts on :good enough".
 
picking nits, half a db distortion over a narrow band that a lot will xover to a sub anyhow. Listening to members argue weather or not the meta is worth the upgrade? Is spending for the reference worth what the R and soon R meta already offer? I started a thread on this forum asking if resolution is real since there's no measurement for it. The thread is getting unsurprising reply's with the objective obviously denying resolution as a real think. If you fall into the camp that doesn't really 'believe' in soundstage, imaging and resolution or, if your system's mainly HT and gaming the diminishing returns aren't worth it. If 2 channel Hi rez is important and money is secondary I can say go to any shop and listen to their hi end room, some of us have our lives changed then and there, others walk right out not caring about the sound quality. Music comes to life in my listening room and I don't show it to anybody. For the resolution deniers they don't hurt my feelings and there's no motivation for me to convince them, but we learn who we're talking to and can keep things civil understanding how much value (especially on this forum)the person we're talking to puts on :good enough".
What resolution are you talking about ?
 
picking nits, half a db distortion over a narrow band that a lot will xover to a sub anyhow. Listening to members argue weather or not the meta is worth the upgrade? Is spending for the reference worth what the R and soon R meta already offer? I started a thread on this forum asking if resolution is real since there's no measurement for it. The thread is getting unsurprising reply's with the objective obviously denying resolution as a real think. If you fall into the camp that doesn't really 'believe' in soundstage, imaging and resolution or, if your system's mainly HT and gaming the diminishing returns aren't worth it. If 2 channel Hi rez is important and money is secondary I can say go to any shop and listen to their hi end room, some of us have our lives changed then and there, others walk right out not caring about the sound quality. Music comes to life in my listening room and I don't show it to anybody. For the resolution deniers they don't hurt my feelings and there's no motivation for me to convince them, but we learn who we're talking to and can keep things civil understanding how much value (especially on this forum)the person we're talking to puts on :good enough".
Multichannel is most important to me for music and movies, so I would rather spend as much as I can on my three front channels and a bit less on the surround and ATMOS!
 
If you go purely by measurements you can probably get something a lot cheaper than the R3 Meta that measures better.
So you are saying that there is something which the R Series do outside what we can measure which may make them sound better than those cheap better measuring options? Or are you suggesting that those cheaper options are better than R Metas ?
 
So you are saying that there is something which the R Series do outside what we can measure which may make them sound better than those cheap better measuring options? Or are you suggesting that those cheaper options are better than R Metas ?
Measurements gives us good insights in what the speaker is capable of, but unless you live in an a proper anechoic chamber, a lot of psycho-acoustics parameters can vary enough to have an impact on how the sound is perceive in each room.
So yes, without taking in consideration how the speakers looks, there are cheaper options that can sound better than the R metas "in some conditions".
 
  • Like
Reactions: exm
I think it's worth linking this thread over to this one, in case people miss it:

 
Did anyone (@exm?) end up sending a Q50a speaker to Amir?

We now have data on R8a and R8 Meta. Would be great to have some data on Q50a to see how it compares. May help many judge if the significantly more expensive R8 Meta is worth it (as the R8a has now become hard to get hold of).
 
Last edited:
Did anyone (@exm?) end up sending a Q50a speaker to Amir?

We now have data on R8a and R8 Meta. Would be great to have some data on Q50a to see how it compares. May help many judge if the significantly more expensive R8 Meta is worth it (as the R8a has now become hard to get hold of).

Unfortunately not. I sold my Q50a's (should have send them in for testing first).
 
That's too bad.

Having tested some of the rest of the Q series, maybe you would be up for pick up the Q50a, @hardisj? :)

My honest, non-testing experience: the Q50a's are great speakers for surrounds. The R8M's definitely opened up the room a bit but I don't think it's worth the money. Can't comment on the older R8's. However, if you can afford the R8M, you can't go wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom