Kef R Meta Series Release

[K man]

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.

That’s a very reasonable reasoning.

Still, I would be curious to see how much worse, or at least different, the Q50a are.

 

[Paffi]

Wondering if I should try R3 meta, compared to my LS50meta and If there would be an advantage, when both have crossover >100hz. Probably at distortion, but not shure, if it's audible.

 

[dogmamann]

Wondering if I should try R3 meta, compared to my LS50meta and If there would be an advantage, when both have crossover >100hz. Probably at distortion, but not shure, if it's audible.

It’s not audible. Ls50 if used above 100hz with eq and subwoofer is equal to the highest end offering from Kef. The higher ends are for those who are lazy to eq it to neutral. Yet they also need some eq to sound right, so what’s the point. SOTA is ls50+eq+subs. You get nothing better. I would buy a higher end because for me I like how the higher end kefs looks and the slightly better build quality.

 

[chris760]

Maybe this has been answered a bunch of times and I missed it while skimming all the Kef threads. Why do the kefs all rank higher than the revels in the passive speaker recommendation thread?

Passive Speaker Recommendations for USA (by @sweetchaos)

I'm constantly asked which speakers to purchase...so, here you go! :D This guide is for PASSIVE speakers. For ACTIVE speakers go here. Click on the "Spoiler" buttons below to expand each section. Readme: Legend: Never Buy This Brand: Passive Bookshelf Speakers: Passive...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Kef R11 Meta	7.1*	8.5*	30*
Kef R7 Meta	7.0*	8.5*	32*
Kef Reference 3 Meta	6.7*	8.4*	33*
Revel F208 (Amir)	6.6	7.7	26
Revel F206	6.4*	8.1*	36*
Revel F228Be (Amir)	6.2	7.6	30

Part of me is now wondering if I should not have just purchased the 228be/426be over some R11 metas and whatever their matching center is...

 

[MarkS]

Because they have higher computed Harman "preference score", the number in the first column. Make of that what you will.

 

[jiji]

It’s not audible. Ls50 if used above 100hz with eq and subwoofer is equal to the highest end offering from Kef. The higher ends are for those who are lazy to eq it to neutral. Yet they also need some eq to sound right, so what’s the point. SOTA is ls50+eq+subs. You get nothing better. I would buy a higher end because for me I like how the higher end kefs looks and the slightly better build quality.

I auditioned LS50 and R3 meta of course without sub or any equalization. I would partially agree below 100 Hz they sounds closer with Ls50+subs. But the mid range and highs they both sound different . LS 50 is more holographic and R3 sounds fuller. These sonic characters will not change with equalization like Dirac live etc. I tried Dirac live with Ls50 which helps to minimize fatigue listening long time, but the sonic characteristic of the LS 50 remains the same beyond 100 Hz (like holographic, Wow phantom center, sound stage etc.)
R3 meta beyond 100 Hz has more control of bass and no fatigue at all(sounds like better bass control, high ends are very refined and sounds fuller) .
I hear noticeable difference between them.
May be its me(subjective) and no offence if others don't hear any difference .
My comparisons are LS50 vs R3 meta and Ls50+subs with Dirac live , Ls50+subs without any eq.
For 2 channel listening I would try to listen without subs due to complicated crossover issues and to avoid any coloration in the sound (raw). May be its me others like the other way around

 

[Paffi]

You compared with LS50 or LS50meta? Did you adjust the different height of the coax (R3 placed at the same standmount is higher - that may explain, what you've described) and the volume leveled? R3 and LS50 placed in AB-AB or AB-BA comparison?

No sub is no option

 

[jiji]

You compared with LS50 or LS50meta? Did you adjust the different height of the coax (R3 placed at the same standmount is higher - that may explain, what you've described) and the volume leveled? R3 and LS50 placed in AB-AB or AB-BA comparison?

No sub is no option

I have LS50 in my home and did played with Dirac live and without any eq and both with & without subs. My subs are optimized through minidsp, MSO and Rew.
I auditioned without subs both LS50 meta and R3 meta in the hi fi demo showroom with same equipment's. The ear level height adjustments was done by the staff there by replacing the stands accordingly. kind of same volume he played . Demos songs also the same.

As i said some like subs and some don't for 2 channel listening

 

[dogmamann]

I auditioned LS50 and R3 meta of course without sub or any equalization. I would partially agree below 100 Hz they sounds closer with Ls50+subs. But the mid range and highs they both sound different . LS 50 is more holographic and R3 sounds fuller. These sonic characters will not change with equalization like Dirac live etc. I tried Dirac live with Ls50 which helps to minimize fatigue listening long time, but the sonic characteristic of the LS 50 remains the same beyond 100 Hz (like holographic, Wow phantom center, sound stage etc.)
R3 meta beyond 100 Hz has more control of bass and no fatigue at all(sounds like better bass control, high ends are very refined and sounds fuller) .
I hear noticeable difference between them.
May be its me(subjective) and no offence if others don't hear any difference .
My comparisons are LS50 vs R3 meta and Ls50+subs with Dirac live , Ls50+subs without any eq.
For 2 channel listening I would try to listen without subs due to complicated crossover issues and to avoid any coloration in the sound (raw). May be its me others like the other way around

Subjective is tricky, we can associate certain sound about how things look, as per measurments if they are equalized they should sound the same. You didn’t equalize them to see this, so you won’t be knowing if the sonic character you say is associated to the difference in measurments at the listening spot when you listened them. Both speaker sounds same if equalized to the target response at the listening spot. Only thing is ls50 won’t be able to handle lows like the r3 so it would distort. But if subs are used, you cannot say which is which

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Subjective is tricky, we can associate certain sound about how things look, as per measurments if they are equalized they should sound the same. You didn’t equalize them to see this, so you won’t be knowing if the sonic character you say is associated to the difference in measurments at the listening spot when you listened them. Both speaker sounds same if equalized to the target response at the listening spot. Only thing is ls50 won’t be able to handle lows like the r3 so it would distort. But if subs are used, you cannot say which is which

Thing is, the ls50 would not perform as well as the r3 between 100hz-250hz
I had the R300 and that speaker die very early at 125hz, it make a weird noise at loud volume, i just cant imagine having the ls50 without a high crossover like min 200hz or in a pc desktop

 

[exm]

It’s not audible. Ls50 if used above 100hz with eq and subwoofer is equal to the highest end offering from Kef. The higher ends are for those who are lazy to eq it to neutral. Yet they also need some eq to sound right, so what’s the point. SOTA is ls50+eq+subs. You get nothing better. I would buy a higher end because for me I like how the higher end kefs looks and the slightly better build quality.

Let's take a look at the drivers, shall we? (assume [subwoofer] crossover hpf is set to 100Hz)

LS50 Meta:
MF/LF: 130 mm (5.25 in.) aluminium cone driver
Crossover: 2,1 kHz

Reference 5:
MF: 125 mm (5 in.) aluminium cone
LF: 4 x 165 mm (6.5 in.) aluminium cone
Crossover: 450 Hz, 2.1 kHz

The LS50 single 5.25" driver will handle all LF/MF between 100Hz-2100Hz
The Reference 5 has four (4) 6.5" drivers handling all LF/MF between 100Hz-450Hz, and a single 6.5" driver which will handle all MF between 450Hz-2100Hz

Ok, not fair. Let's add the "high end" bookshelf speaker to the mix:
Reference 1:
MF: 125 mm (5 in.) aluminium cone
LF: 165 mm (6.5 in.) aluminium cone
Crossover: 450 Hz, 2.1 kHz

The Reference 1 has a single 6.5" driver handling all LF/MF between 100Hz-450Hz, and a single 6.5" driver which will handle all MF between 450Hz-2100Hz

I'm not even talking about the difference in driver quality. Are you sure with your facts?

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

To me the potential best value can be the ls60, the tweeter is 19cm instead of 25cm, i guess that can be possible for an active kef speaker 3-way


In the top end that tweeter will not beam like the typical 25cm tweeter / 1''.

 

[thewas]

To me the potential best value can be the ls60, the tweeter is 19cm instead of 25cm, i guess that can be possible for an active kef speaker 3-way


In the top end that tweeter will not beam like the typical 25cm tweeter / 1''.

The top end dispersion is mainly controlled by the tangerine waveguide and is very similar on their 19 mm and 25 mm tweeters, here exemplary for the LS60 vs Blade 2 Meta:

 

[fineMen]

I'm not even talking about the difference in driver quality. Are you sure with your facts?

The driver quality is in general not the limiting factor with either of their top tier coaxes. All these recent improvements are more engineering art than engineering necessity. It is the Doppler distortion that limits, due to the basic operation mode of a dynamic speaker, the available volume with a desired bandwidth before a given threshold of distortion.

You may not know Siegfried Linkwitz, who sadly passed away some time ago. But at least for his widely reknown reputation you might read this short piece: https://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm#J

In case you're not so fond of elementary math I confirm the correctness of his calculations, and as educated in the very field I agree to his use of terms. One simply cannot dismiss his results, but some still do. Some ignore the facts downhanded.

The Rs and Refs are not actually perfect, but virtually so in respect to the capabilities of the human hearing. It should be clear from Linkwitz' explanations that the LS50 when driven down to 100Hz exhibits 16 times the Doppler driven intermodulation of an R model in which the coax sees an x-over at 400Hz. Probably one could get away with an x-over of 200Hz for the little LS50, don't overdo, but you can't beat physics.

 

[dogmamann]

Let's take a look at the drivers, shall we? (assume [subwoofer] crossover hpf is set to 100Hz)

LS50 Meta:
MF/LF: 130 mm (5.25 in.) aluminium cone driver
Crossover: 2,1 kHz

Reference 5:
MF: 125 mm (5 in.) aluminium cone
LF: 4 x 165 mm (6.5 in.) aluminium cone
Crossover: 450 Hz, 2.1 kHz

The LS50 single 5.25" driver will handle all LF/MF between 100Hz-2100Hz
The Reference 5 has four (4) 6.5" drivers handling all LF/MF between 100Hz-450Hz, and a single 6.5" driver which will handle all MF between 450Hz-2100Hz

Ok, not fair. Let's add the "high end" bookshelf speaker to the mix:
Reference 1:
MF: 125 mm (5 in.) aluminium cone
LF: 165 mm (6.5 in.) aluminium cone
Crossover: 450 Hz, 2.1 kHz

The Reference 1 has a single 6.5" driver handling all LF/MF between 100Hz-450Hz, and a single 6.5" driver which will handle all MF between 450Hz-2100Hz

I'm not even talking about the difference in driver quality. Are you sure with your facts?

Is

Let's take a look at the drivers, shall we? (assume [subwoofer] crossover hpf is set to 100Hz)

LS50 Meta:
MF/LF: 130 mm (5.25 in.) aluminium cone driver
Crossover: 2,1 kHz

Reference 5:
MF: 125 mm (5 in.) aluminium cone
LF: 4 x 165 mm (6.5 in.) aluminium cone
Crossover: 450 Hz, 2.1 kHz

The LS50 single 5.25" driver will handle all LF/MF between 100Hz-2100Hz
The Reference 5 has four (4) 6.5" drivers handling all LF/MF between 100Hz-450Hz, and a single 6.5" driver which will handle all MF between 450Hz-2100Hz

Ok, not fair. Let's add the "high end" bookshelf speaker to the mix:
Reference 1:
MF: 125 mm (5 in.) aluminium cone
LF: 165 mm (6.5 in.) aluminium cone
Crossover: 450 Hz, 2.1 kHz

The Reference 1 has a single 6.5" driver handling all LF/MF between 100Hz-450Hz, and a single 6.5" driver which will handle all MF between 450Hz-2100Hz

I'm not even talking about the difference in driver quality. Are you sure with your facts?

if ls50 meta is crossed with subwoofers at 100hz and if it’s played is normal listening room loudness say 85db, it’s equals highest Kef offering.

Both references and ls50 metas need eq in the room, so basically it’s the same effort to get them sound right in the room. References are total waste of money as the uniq goal is achievable easily by a fraction cost of the references.

If eq is not used they sound different, but who needs that ? Every speaker needs eq to sound right in a listening room.

 

[dogmamann]

I'm not even talking about the difference in driver quality. Are you sure with your facts?

Driver quality - does it matter if they are both capable of producing accurate sound within human audibility limits ?

On the event of a clipping both the tweeters on the ls50 and references can be damaged with the same effort.

 

[fineMen]

Driver quality - does it matter if they are both capable of producing accurate sound within human audibility limits ?

On the event of a clipping both the tweeters on the ls50 and references can be damaged with the same effort.

I like you mentioning usual listening levels. 85 is very loud and is at best topped with 'critical listening' when assessing the speaker itself rather than actually enjoying 'music'. If one really neads more better go for cinema speakers and make a valid plan covering the entire implementation before, it's not 'consumer grade' anymore. Small room, reasonable expectations => LS50 x/o 200Hz, stereo subs affirmed. R3 would pose the threshold to perfection.

 

[dogmamann]

I like you mentioning usual listening levels. 85 is very loud and is at best topped with 'critical listening' when assessing the speaker itself rather than actually enjoying 'music'. If one really neads more better go for cinema speakers and make a valid plan covering the entire implementation before, it's not 'consumer grade' anymore. Small room, reasonable expectations => LS50 x/o 200Hz, stereo subs affirmed. R3 would pose the threshold to perfection.

Agree with R3s, even the old versions ! That’s all you need if you need the Kef way.

 

[Soniclife]

if ls50 meta is crossed with subwoofers at 100hz and if it’s played is normal listening room loudness say 85db, it’s equals highest Kef offering.

At what listening distance is that 85db?

 

[asadrafi98]

Hi guys,
General question, is michi x5 series 2 over kill for r11 metas or I should just stick with X3 series 2.... no plan on upgrading metas for the next 2-3 years. speakers are in transit, havent pulled the trigger for the amp yet. dedicated listening room 24'16'11' (L,W,H). music mostly Tidal/streaming and Flac files, listening distance anywhere suitable as the room is for music only. goal is a 2.2 system 90%+ music. any suggestions for subwoofer is appreciated( likely candidate is 2x Rel T/9x). feel free to suggest any alternatives for the amp or the subs. thank you ( its my first audio system build, Mostly coming from the Headphone/IEM world, my current headphone and IEM desktop and portable set up price wise comparable to the system I am building ( last comment was just to shed some light to what my ears are used to listening/appreciating). thank you very much