KEF R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

[exm]

My current speaker is the R900 (with EQ 41 Hz -10db).
I have always found it a bit slow, lacking slam, and with a kinda "plastic" treble.
Wondering if this R11 meta is significantly better...

No. I feel that the R900 is a superior speakers (my 2 cents). If you want to upgrade, get a used pair of Reference 5s...

 

[Vacceo]

No. I feel that the R900 is a superior speakers (my 2 cents). If you want to upgrade, get a used pair of Reference 5s...

We may have to wait for the R110 meta...

I have the feeling that jumping from my current IQ series to R Meta can be night and day, but since I have to upgrade my electronics first, that could be a way to get an even further change in the future.

 

[thewas]

I have the feeling that jumping from my current IQ series to R Meta can be night and day, but since I have to upgrade my electronics first, that could be a way to get an even further change in the future.

I am "afraid" it can be really a huge step, but why do you have to upgrade your electronics first? That expensive loudspeakers always need expensive electronics is a myth, measurements show that there are a lot of cheap electronics which are audibly transparent.

 

[Vacceo]

I am "afraid" it can be really a huge step, but why do you have to upgrade your electronics first? That expensive loudspeakers always need expensive electronics is a myth, measurements show that there are a lot of cheap electronics which are audibly transparent.

Because with my current AVR, I´d need more wattage to run 4 ohm speakers. On the other hand, the AVR can run 9 speakers and I want to run 11. Dirac is another interesting element I want added.

EDIT: @thewas , I also think that I can squeeze my current speakers further with Dirac. With that done, I can adress shortcomings with speakers. I get a good sound with Audyssey, but I think I can do better than a 2016 AVR in that department.

 

[lordhumungous]

There's a guy over on the Roon forum that says this speaker sounds "dull" and "muffled".

That would be the first Kef speaker ive ever heard being described as such. This is why you can't trust your ears.

 

[welwynnick]

The thing Kef seems to consistently underdo subjectively for me is the bass. They allow for to much room gain on their upper echelon speakers for my taste, and so end up sounding a bit wimpy and thin, while their older Ref series (threes and fours) were a bit the contrary..Correcting and extending my KEF Ref 205 using h RME ADI 2 DAC adaptative loudness and Focus Fidelity generated FIR filters in Roon, made them sound so much better it is really an eye opener.I use a modified Harman style curve, with 4 to 5 db bass boost instead of the original 6db, and 1 to 1,5 db less downward high freq tilt past 1Khz. Kef s quality,low distortion, low compression drivers, especially in multy way models, take this Equing with no problem.

Several people commented about this, and I see the reasoning behind the objection.

However, looking at the Revel floorstanders that Amir tested - F208, 228, 328 etc - they all show the same bass shelving / tapering, and I don't hear many complaints about them.

 

[bodhi]

However, looking at the Revel floorstanders that Amir tested - F208, 228, 328 etc - they all show the same bass shelving / tapering, and I don't hear many complaints about them.

This is why we have measurements. People's taste in low end reproduction varies so much that I pay no attention to random comments about whether some speaker is bass heavy or light if I don't know for sure that the person is talking about compared to flat(tish) FR or there isn't some kind of measurements attached.

 

[kelesh]

That's why I think the value proposition on the R11 isn't great unless you can get them on a really good sale.

These or Buchardt A700 for the same money? A700 all day. And there are other end game speakers I would want to cross-shop as well. Revel is a toss up; the F228Be is too expensive. The F226Be is right there but the bass output is lacking. Then there are value kings like Ascend and Philharmonic Audio to consider.

Different animals, though. A700 are active. You have to run line-level from the source, rather than speaker cable, not to mention power, as well as fiddle with controls on the back of the speakers. I personally dislike this. And they are ugly, in a "modern furniture" way. YMMV

 

[Chromatischism]

There's a guy over on the Roon forum that says this speaker sounds "dull" and "muffled".

That would be the first Kef speaker ive ever heard being described as such. This is why you can't trust your ears.

Perceived frequency response is relative to what you've heard. The user likely spent many years with boom-tiss speakers and needs to give these more time. I've never been a KEF fanboy but I think these look great, just too expensive.

 

[Chromatischism]

Different animals, though. A700 are active. You have to run line-level from the source, rather than speaker cable, not to mention power, as well as fiddle with controls on the back of the speakers. I personally dislike this. And they are ugly, in a "modern furniture" way. YMMV

While looks are subjective, you're getting more for your money, at least.

 

[beagleman]

Because with my current AVR, I´d need more wattage to run 4 ohm speakers. On the other hand, the AVR can run 9 speakers and I want to run 11. Dirac is another interesting element I want added.

EDIT: @thewas , I also think that I can squeeze my current speakers further with Dirac. With that done, I can adress shortcomings with speakers. I get a good sound with Audyssey, but I think I can do better than a 2016 AVR in that department.

Ehh, not so sure.

The thing about AVRs being way too weak to play 4 ohm speakers is partially true, but not completely.

I have run SEVERAL 4 ohm speakers, albeit in mostly 2 channel mode or 2.1 and there was ZERO issue, as long as one was within the limits of its actual power.

A dedicated Power amp for sure "MIGHT" give you more headroom and so on, but its for sure not some Night and day difference or huge change. Its more a subtle change and when I did that 95% of the time, I could not even tell the difference

Now running all 9 channels full volume...for sure more of a weakness....

 

[Vacceo]

Ehh, not so sure.

The thing about AVRs being way too weak to play 4 ohm speakers is partially true, but not completely.

I have run SEVERAL 4 ohm speakers, albeit in mostly 2 channel mode or 2.1 and there was ZERO issue, as long as one was within the limits of its actual power.

A dedicated Power amp for sure "MIGHT" give you more headroom and so on, but its for sure not some Night and day difference or huge change. Its more a subtle change and when I did that 95% of the time, I could not even tell the difference

Now running all 9 channels full volume...for sure more of a weakness....

I currently run all seven channels and they work on the IQ's at moderate volumen. With the R's, I'd not count on it.

 

[ban25]

I currently run all seven channels and they work on the IQ's at moderate volumen. With the R's, I'd not count on it.

FWIW, I currently run two R11s, an R2C, a pair of R3s, and four Ci200RR-THX in-ceilings all on an AVR. No problems whatsoever at reference volumes (0 dB) in Atmos movies or listening to music upmixed in AURO3D.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Several people commented about this, and I see the reasoning behind the objection.

However, looking at the Revel floorstanders that Amir tested - F208, 228, 328 etc - they all show the same bass shelving / tapering, and I don't hear many complaints about them.

'Proper' Bass levels will likely be
A. Very subjective
B. objectively different at different playback levels.
C. influenced by the room size
So...
A= dealers choice
B= The louder you listen the lower the bass could be tuned to have the same subjective balance with the rest of the spectrum.

Testing has shown it takes about 10db in the midrange to to sound twice as loud
Yet it take s 5-6db in the bass to sound twice as loud.(and the minimum threshold for audibility is very high in the very low bass)
Therefore the perception of neutral or pleasing bass levels is fully intertwined with the actual playback levels.

C= perception of 'correct' bass SPL relative to the rest of the band has been shown to be different in larger vs smaller rooms.

 

[AudioJester]

Yes they are consistent.
Erin ran the R5meta on his klippel. Go have a look at his site. 'Erin's Audio Corner'. He also did a YouTube review of that speaker.

I don't see any reason to buy the R11 if you have subs. Or even the the R7. With subs and the right crossover blending the R5 or even the R3 will handle most situations.
The R11 is for the look of a tall tower and maybe for someone who doesn't want any subwoofers.

I think a lot of that 'huge' tower sense of scale is sighted biases. Subs and medium sized mains would be my general choice vs huge towers and both options sound 'huge'.

Not sure about this. If you have subs, you still buy the best performing speaker you can afford. The R11 measures better than any of the others mentioned. Now the advantage being that for many situations you may not even need subs.

Value for money? In the Kef range, by your argument the original LS50 is enough. Or cheaper Ascend, BMR, Arendal.....

 

[beagleman]

Not sure about this. If you have subs, you still buy the best performing speaker you can afford. The R11 measures better than any of the others mentioned. Now the advantage being that for many situations you may not even need subs.

Value for money? In the Kef range, by your argument the original LS50 is enough. Or cheaper Ascend, BMR, Arendal.....

I have listened to many large speakers, where owners claimed they did not "Need" a sub, but in literally almost every case, I found their definition on "Not needing" one, to not be the same as mine.

My 2 relatively mid priced Velodyne CT-120s, from many years ago, STILL had noticeably better Deep bass in the 26 or so to 35 Hertz range.
Even most bigger speakers, with a few exceptions, rarely do well below about 35Hz, in my experiences.

Some DO below 35, but it is either not at the same level as higher bass, due to roll off or placement, or distortion is not equal to my 2 subs, and in a noticeable way.

 

[radix]

I have listened to many large speakers, where owners claimed they did not "Need" a sub, but in literally almost every case, I found their definition on "Not needing" one, to not be the same as mine.

My 2 relatively mid priced Velodyne CT-120s, from many years ago, STILL had noticeably better Deep bass in the 26 or so to 35 Hertz range.
Even most bigger speakers, with a few exceptions, rarely do well below about 35Hz, in my experiences.

Some DO below 35, but it is either not at the same level as higher bass, due to roll off or placement, or distortion is not equal to my 2 subs, and in a noticeable way.

I have Revel F228be. For a few years, I did not have room in the living room for a sub. It was kind of an open floorplan. Anyway, sound was good. Then I moved to a new house and got an Arendel 1723 S1. It makes a tremendous difference. A 14" driver can move air in ways even dual 8" cannot. It's almost 1.5x the surface area. And, the sub needs to be in a different spot than the speakers to avoid bad room modes. No way I could EQ the room mode away from the speakers.

I have some L100 re-issues in a different room without sub. They sound just fine, it's obvious (in non-level matched test) that the f228be w/ sub is just a completely different experience. Yes, it's different amps, different rooms, different volumes, but the F228+sub goes down below 10 Hz with authority. The L100s die out around 35 Hz. And yes, I do listen to some music with < 40 Hz content. Though probably the 100-200 Hz modes I cannot fix without a sub on the L100s that come across the most.

 

[AudioJester]

I have listened to many large speakers, where owners claimed they did not "Need" a sub, but in literally almost every case, I found their definition on "Not needing" one, to not be the same as mine.

My 2 relatively mid priced Velodyne CT-120s, from many years ago, STILL had noticeably better Deep bass in the 26 or so to 35 Hertz range.
Even most bigger speakers, with a few exceptions, rarely do well below about 35Hz, in my experiences.

Some DO below 35, but it is either not at the same level as higher bass, due to roll off or placement, or distortion is not equal to my 2 subs, and in a noticeable way.

Ah, need for subs varies, we will all have anecdotes. There are threads full of the same back and forth.

If you look at in room measurements and bass levels, most people fall into the untrained listener category and need subs for extra/exagurated bass

 

[Mnyb]

You mostly need the sub for bass quality and headroom and reduce the work the mains have to do.
One might also spend some bass headroom to EQ the room .
And if you managed to the flatten the room bass will sound subjectively lean to most listeners so it might need a little kick up especially if you don’t usually listen at reference levels , so one might end up with some “loudness” compensation baked into the system.

IMO bass varies widely with the production of the music to ! So you will end up at one end of the circle of confusion?
Seems like bass reproduction been a problem for studio control rooms too ? And if it’s very popular song it may be very bass reduced and lack slam due to “production values” ?

So tone controls and or several different presets of your EQ can help you ?

 

[ROOSKIE]

Not sure about this. If you have subs, you still buy the best performing speaker you can afford. The R11 measures better than any of the others mentioned. Now the advantage being that for many situations you may not even need subs.

Value for money? In the Kef range, by your argument the original LS50 is enough. Or cheaper Ascend, BMR, Arendal.....

Well, I disagree, and to be clear I didn't say any old monitor will do.
If you have subs and robust monitors or nice small towers there is generally not a real need to pay for more low bass from the towers. Sure if you want to go ahead.
Based on what I see the R11 does not measure better than the R7meta, R5meta or the R3meta above the bass range.
They are all very similar with only low bass extension and some mid bass ultimate output level being the differentiator.

The R11 simply has more bass but if you are using subs the added bass becomes far less meaningful. Yes without subs your R11 has better bass. I'd rather have subs.
If you have a HUGE room you may want the R11 for extra output ability in the 80-150hrz zone where it is possible the R5 or R3 would not play as loudly. This would be extremely loud though in a 'normal' sized room. You can also blend your subs in @90-100hrz in such a way as to have those large tower benefits in the midbass.

The LS50 is too small for many rooms even with subs. It would be fine in a small to medium room but for any higher output it really should be high passed at 100hrz(or higher if you can get the blend right and the subs are placed where they will not be localized, even 150hrz, even 250hrz with the LS50 sitting on smaller subs making DIY 3ways.) The LS50meta does sound good but it is very small and very output limited alone.

But yes by my metric a large, robust monitors and subs is very much a viable R11 option.

The 4, 6.5" drivers in each R11 have about a 12" woofers surface area. I seriously doubt they actually can output as much as a good beefy 12" subwoofer though.

At any rate the R11's are beautiful and cool and not a meaningful upgrade in my view over KEFs smaller R series speakers(and many other options) provide you have subs and high pass the mains.(and have the skills to make a great blend and measure, though even with just the R11 one ought to measure and apply some room 'correction' in the bass and midbass)

Now if you still want a very cool looking contemporary tower of power I won't hold it against you or anyone & the R11 is that.