KEF R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

[AudioJester]

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.

Yeah, what you say makes sense.

 

[er|κzvio1in]

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.

Depending on the size of the room and speaker placement 100-200 hz likely comprises both sbir and room modes and both can (need to) be dealt with differently. Also, with subs you might be able to fill dips due to room effects, but peaks can't be solved with placement alone and will require equilisation or other filters.

 

[cavedriver]

Wondering why we aren't talking about the acoustic height of these speakers. Looks like about 32" above the floor. Way too low for a tower in my book. Who wants the sound coming from below head height? I've tried listening to some of the smaller R speakers and they are even lower and, well, it sucks. Maybe it's not a deal breaker but it sure seams like a measurement that should be included as a negative in the review, @amirm ?

 

[slaweks]

LS60 is even smaller.

 

[thewas]

Wondering why we aren't talking about the acoustic height of these speakers. Looks like about 32" above the floor. Way too low for a tower in my book. Who wants the sound coming from below head height? I've tried listening to some of the smaller R speakers and they are even lower and, well, it sucks. Maybe it's not a deal breaker but it sure seams like a measurement that should be included as a negative in the review, @amirm ?

Guess it depends also the height of the listener and his chair, for example my ear canals in my currently listening chair are at 35 inches which at a typical listening distance would just cause a small vertical difference (angle). I agree that I prefer having the "stage" higher though, on the other hand the directivity symmetry would be compromised if not such a WCW configuration would be used or the design and cost if they made taller, everything is a compromise.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Just means you can buy stands for them to improve the sound even more.

 

[Mnyb]

LS60 is even smaller.

And the height of the soundstage is not limited to the height of the speakers a thing the coaxial driver fixes for you as directivity is just as good vertically you can listen off axis in both directions . But seated in my sofa I don’t find LS60 coax driver to low vs my ears . It does not even look weird ( so no cognitive dissonance there ).

 

[amirm]

Maybe it's not a deal breaker but it sure seams like a measurement that should be included as a negative in the review, @amirm ?

I did get the sensation that it was a bit too low. On the other hand, with my Salon 2 I get the feeling that it is sometimes too high.

 

[cavedriver]

I did get the sensation that it was a bit too low. On the other hand, with my Salon 2 I get the feeling that it is sometimes too high.

Yeah, I can think of a bunch of examples of speakers that are either too low or too high. But even if an ideal height could be agreed on, any attempt to score it numerically would just further erode the usefulness of the preference scores and faith in the testing. I suppose it would be nice to at least report the height that the center of the vertical directivity plot is based on, and then let individuals compare that to their listening setup and the speaker's specific directivity.

 

[quattro98]

I did get the sensation that it was a bit too low. On the other hand, with my Salon 2 I get the feeling that it is sometimes too high.

It’s interesting to see the differences between two excellent lines from Revel and KEF.

Looking at Performa Be as an example, the larger models have higher tweeters and midranges. I assume the listening axis is higher, but I don’t know if the crossovers are adjusted differently to account for the height.

In the box shaped KEF R and Reference lines, the Uni-Q height remains constant across speaker sizes, but it lower than most other speakers on the market.

 

[Vacceo]

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.

Your take is what Mr. Sigberg had in mind when he designed his active bookshelves: totally offload the low frequencies to subwoofers and get a coaxial that is super tight above 100hz.

Out of pure practicallity, all things aside, the only limitation for a setup of R3´s and subwoofers would be SPL, but if you are not using them in a quite large environment, that is a non-problem.

 

[nstzya]

@amirm,
This has likely been discussed (perhaps to death) and is completely OT, but every time I see this room - I’m curious about the bookshelf speakers in the background and their orientation?? :

 

[Robbo99999]

@amirm,
This has likely been discussed (perhaps to death) and is completely OT, but every time I see this room - I’m curious about the bookshelf speakers in the background and their orientation?? :

View attachment 360138

I thought the exact same thing when I saw the pic in the latest review.

 

[welwynnick]

@amirm,
This has likely been discussed (perhaps to death) and is completely OT, but every time I see this room - I’m curious about the bookshelf speakers in the background and their orientation?? :

I believe they are Revel Performa M20.

 

[Mtbf]

With all this praise it seems that I appear to be the odd one out here. I’ve tried quite hard, but I have yet to be turned into a KEF fanboy, to be convinced of the superior sound quality of KEF. The original LS50 wasn’t for me, it pierced my ears. I mainly listen to active speakers nowadays, but since I also own a serious analogue rig, I’ve been looking for a good replacement for my passive towers for quite some time now. And in that process I’ve auditioned frequently KEF speakers, lately focussing on the Reference 3 meta and the Blade 2 meta as possible candidates.

But for some reason I can’t get connected to these speakers, which is quite frustrating knowing that they do measure quite good. They aren’t and can’t be bad, obviously, but what I personally miss is refinement in the mids and highs, for lack of a better word, that I’m expecting from speakers, certainly in these price ranges. For me the meta versions are an improvement, but that still doesn’t tilt the medal for me.

Interesting BTW, whether measurement-wise the differences could reliably be pinpointed between the pre-meta and meta versions. The problem there is of course that there are more differences between the pre-meta and the meta versions than just the addition of that meta disk. But at least to me the “measurement improvements of meta” aren’t all that obvious, while the audible improvements are. So much for only looking at graphs, I don’t exclude my ears, thank you.

Okay, it could be that those ears simply just don’t like coaxial drivers, but that’s not logical in the first place, and it also isn’t the case, since I’m greatly enjoying the outstanding sound quality of my coaxial Genelecs 8351B’s/7370 set on a daily basis. I’m BTW possibly even more appreciating my non-coaxial Neumann KH150’s, truly fabulous speakers. Those are my references in my search for new passif towers, and they do have that mid-high frequency refinement that I’m searching for.

So I can only conclude that the KEF coaxial drivers don’t appear to be for me. And that really hinders me, having just seen and read Erin’s auditioning and measurements of the Blade 2 meta, and having great trust in and respect for Erin’s expertise and verdicts in general. The only thing that maybe could be of influence is that I haven’t had the chance to audition the Reference 3 or Blade 2 meta in my own home, but I did listen to them quite extensively on various occasions in different listening environments.

So is there anybody out there that has a similar experience / opinion? Any tips or solutions? Constructive criticism greatly appreciated.

 

[Purité Audio]

If you are enjoying your actives why search for passives?
Keith

 

[Mtbf]

Because, as mentioned, I own some serious analogue stuff, and I want to keep using that. Looks are another thing, I’m not alone, you know.

 

[dagfinn]

With all this praise it seems that I appear to be the odd one out here. I’ve tried quite hard, but I have yet to be turned into a KEF fanboy, to be convinced of the superior sound quality of KEF. The original LS50 wasn’t for me, it pierced my ears. I mainly listen to active speakers nowadays, but since I also own a serious analogue rig, I’ve been looking for a good replacement for my passive towers for quite some time now. And in that process I’ve auditioned frequently KEF speakers, lately focussing on the Reference 3 meta and the Blade 2 meta as possible candidates.

But for some reason I can’t get connected to these speakers, which is quite frustrating knowing that they do measure quite good. They aren’t and can’t be bad, obviously, but what I personally miss is refinement in the mids and highs, for lack of a better word, that I’m expecting from speakers, certainly in these price ranges. For me the meta versions are an improvement, but that still doesn’t tilt the medal for me.

Interesting BTW, whether measurement-wise the differences could reliably be pinpointed between the pre-meta and meta versions. The problem there is of course that there are more differences between the pre-meta and the meta versions than just the addition of that meta disk. But at least to me the “measurement improvements of meta” aren’t all that obvious, while the audible improvements are. So much for only looking at graphs, I don’t exclude my ears, thank you.

Okay, it could be that those ears simply just don’t like coaxial drivers, but that’s not logical in the first place, and it also isn’t the case, since I’m greatly enjoying the outstanding sound quality of my coaxial Genelecs 8351B’s/7370 set on a daily basis. I’m BTW possibly even more appreciating my non-coaxial Neumann KH150’s, truly fabulous speakers. Those are my references in my search for new passif towers, and they do have that mid-high frequency refinement that I’m searching for.

So I can only conclude that the KEF coaxial drivers don’t appear to be for me. And that really hinders me, having just seen and read Erin’s auditioning and measurements of the Blade 2 meta, and having great trust in and respect for Erin’s expertise and verdicts in general. The only thing that maybe could be of influence is that I haven’t had the chance to audition the Reference 3 or Blade 2 meta in my own home, but I did listen to them quite extensively on various occasions in different listening environments.

So is there anybody out there that has a similar experience / opinion? Any tips or solutions? Constructive criticism greatly appreciated.

I'm trying hard not to agree with you, since the R3s I own look very, very nice. Due to all the Blade 2/R11 Meta talk lately, I brought them out of storage for retrials. But, next to Genelec and JBL, the R3 does sound a bit muffled and closed - mids and highs are sadly lacking. I'm still looking for some genre they will shine, but so far, to my ears and my music, they are not quite what I'd wish them to be. EQ helps, but that's not optimal for me.

 

[amirm]

@amirm,
This has likely been discussed (perhaps to death) and is completely OT, but every time I see this room - I’m curious about the bookshelf speakers in the background and their orientation?? :

As noted, it is a pair of old Revel M20 speakers. When we first moved into this house, I bought a Samsung LCD TV to go in that built-in cabinet. The sound out of the TV was excruciatingly annoying (the LG OLED there now has much better sound). I had the M20s so decided to use them with an AVR. Placing them vertically would have made the shelving tall and odd, bringing attention to them. So I put them horizontal and with the tweeters to the right as to increase the width of soundstage. Despite that orientation not being as optimal as vertical, the performance has been superb. The M20 are able to product just the right amount of bass for movie watching. And of course, the fidelity blows away any TV or soundbar. I added a remote sub but it was way too boomy on commercials.

 

[Robbo99999]

As noted, it is a pair of old Revel M20 speakers. When we first moved into this house, I bought a Samsung LCD TV to go in that built-in cabinet. The sound out of the TV was excruciatingly annoying (the LG OLED there now has much better sound). I had the M20s so decided to use them with an AVR. Placing them vertically would have made the shelving tall and odd, bringing attention to them. So I put them horizontal and with the tweeters to the right as to increase the width of soundstage. Despite that orientation not being as optimal as vertical, the performance has been superb. The M20 are able to product just the right amount of bass for movie watching. And of course, the fidelity blows away any TV or soundbar. I added a remote sub but it was way too boomy on commercials.

+1 for good bookshelf speakers for TV (movie) watching as a simple upgrade.