• 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 R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

Rate this speaker:

  • 1. Poor (headless panther)

    Votes: 5 1.0%
  • 2. Not terrible (postman panther)

    Votes: 7 1.5%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 88 18.4%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 379 79.1%

  • Total voters
    479
Other than bass extension, the Blade 2 actually looks better than the Blade 1. Hard to tell as the resolution isn’t as god as Amir/Erin spins, but what do you see? Blade 2 spin looks better to me outside of extension, but the difference is small, and maybe not so audible.
I fully agree and guess that are the reasons why most (like KR) opt for the 2 (I would also) and KEF rather sends it for reviews than the 1.
 
I fully agree and guess that are the reasons why most (like KR) opt for the 2 (I would also) and KEF rather sends it for reviews than the 1.
If that's the case I wouldn't put either of them in a big room with side walls far away.
Judging by what I heard listening to the Blade 1 midbass is there (probably as it should be) but it's not gonna shake your world,despite the size of the speaker.
No impact sensing,just there.

(I'm talking about a 120m² room with side walls more than 4 meters away from each speaker)
 
100% disagree. These speakers will sound different. In any room. The old one will sound thinner and brighter, and clearly they tried to address that.


This is well known, so agreed.
they would sound different, i didnt say otherwise. Point is the flat one wont sound in a room flat which means that stock flat is not relevant if directivity is good.
 
That stock frequency response is inaudible in a real room and even the flattest speaker would not sound flat in a real room. So depending on what room you are listening them to, your first impression can drift to new meta or old one.
Maybe it's semantics, but I think that is completely wrong (at least the way it was phrased). If one were to sum up thousands of pages of research and years of testing into a few sentences, it's the idea that a speaker with flat a on-axis response and smooth directivity will sound "good" or "neutral" and be "preferred" by most people no matter what room you put them in.

A neutral (flat) speaker is indeed going to sound neutral no matter what room you put them in. Dr. Toole did specific tests that verified this. Does it sound the same? No. You can tell you're in a different room. Does it sound like the same speaker in whatever room you're in? Yes. Of course it won't measure flat though. EQ it flat in room and it'll no longer sound neutral. That's the whole reason we do anechoic measurements--the characteristics we measure anechoically will be heard in room.

I'm fully with you on the EQ though--if the directivity is good and you EQ it anechoically, it's going to sound good regardless of what the original frequency response looked like. And if two speakers have extremely similar DI curves and you EQ them to be similar anechoically, they are going to sound very similar in room.
 
Maybe it's semantics, but I think that is completely wrong (at least the way it was phrased). If one were to sum up thousands of pages of research and years of testing into a few sentences, it's the idea that a speaker with flat a on-axis response and smooth directivity will sound "good" or "neutral" and be "preferred" by most people no matter what room you put them in.

A neutral (flat) speaker is indeed going to sound neutral no matter what room you put them in. Dr. Toole did specific tests that verified this. Does it sound the same? No. You can tell you're in a different room. Does it sound like the same speaker in whatever room you're in? Yes. Of course it won't measure flat though. EQ it flat in room and it'll no longer sound neutral. That's the whole reason we do anechoic measurements--the characteristics we measure anechoically will be heard in room.

I'm fully with you on the EQ though--if the directivity is good and you EQ it anechoically, it's going to sound good regardless of what the original frequency response looked like. And if two speakers have extremely similar DI curves and you EQ them to be similar anechoically, they are going to sound very similar in room.
The effect of the room impact the neutrability form the speaker, so its incorrecr to say
“A neutral (flat) speaker is indeed going to sound neutral no matter what room you put them in. “
A speaker with a lor of enhancement in bass may ne percibe as a warmer fr, while a speaker with huge cancelation in its bass, will sound cold, dead, boring or whatever u say.
Because you listen the speaker as a whole, the room will change how do you percibe the speaker
 
Maybe it's semantics, but I think that is completely wrong (at least the way it was phrased). If one were to sum up thousands of pages of research and years of testing into a few sentences, it's the idea that a speaker with flat a on-axis response and smooth directivity will sound "good" or "neutral" and be "preferred" by most people no matter what room you put them in.

A neutral (flat) speaker is indeed going to sound neutral no matter what room you put them in. Dr. Toole did specific tests that verified this. Does it sound the same? No. You can tell you're in a different room. Does it sound like the same speaker in whatever room you're in? Yes. Of course it won't measure flat though. EQ it flat in room and it'll no longer sound neutral. That's the whole reason we do anechoic measurements--the characteristics we measure anechoically will be heard in room.

I'm fully with you on the EQ though--if the directivity is good and you EQ it anechoically, it's going to sound good regardless of what the original frequency response looked like. And if two speakers have extremely similar DI curves and you EQ them to be similar anechoically, they are going to sound very similar in room.
If at your listening spot, its not neutral without eq, due to the room or the speaker itself, well you are not listening to the recording in the most transparent way. In an anechoic chamber it makes sense to have a speaker with flat on axis response. In a real room, you need EQ for a flat speaker as well as a non flat speaker, which means only good directivity is enough. Good directivity+EQ is enough - End of the discussion. My R11 with EQ has the potential to sound neutral at a listening spot as any other state of the art speaker in the world. I don't have too look any further in my life for a better speaker as with EQ I already have transparency. Simple.
 
So, with a Denon X4800Hwith Dirac DLBC and two subwoofers there is no need to buy the reference 3 or 5 Meta? The R7 or R11 META is good enough? I saved some money and reading a lot and getting advise from forum members (respect), my mind is twisting.

(I don't want the monitor. My wife likes the white floorstanders)
 
Last edited:
Just listening to this album on my (non-Meta) R11s. Man, that string bass!

the-complete-two-as-one-w-buster-williams-2-lp-se.jpg


Decided I don't need subwoofers.
I find ‘walking’ double bass lines are a great test for even bass and they will always hunt out and expose room modes.

Before I got dual subs and Dirac the double bass notes on Day is Done by Brad Meldau would bounce across the room due to room asymmetry . Nothing kills the illusion of a live band than a bass player that does that :))

Glad you’re happy with your kefs :)
 
So, with a Denon X4800Hwith Dirac DLBC and two subwoofers there is no need to buy the reference 3 or 5 Meta? The R7 or R11 META is good enough? I saved some money and reading a lot and getting advise from forum members (respect), my mind is twisting.

(I don't want the monitor. My wife likes the white floorstanders)

I went from the R11 to the Reference 5 (non-Meta). I can tell you, that the difference is significant: the Reference has a much better LF (even mid-bass), the Reference tweeter is much more open/surrounding you and the build quality is night-and-day. Not knocking the R series, but you can't compare them. Personally I rather have a non-Meta (used?) Reference 5 or (even two 4 [center vertical]) over the R11 Meta.
 
Thank you for the reply. I had some speakers from the non meta R versions and the R3 meta here. A listening session is in the planning. All information is greatly appreciated.
 
I went from the R11 to the Reference 5 (non-Meta). I can tell you, that the difference is significant: the Reference has a much better LF (even mid-bass), the Reference tweeter is much more open/surrounding you and the build quality is night-and-day. Not knocking the R series, but you can't compare them. Personally I rather have a non-Meta (used?) Reference 5 or (even two 4 [center vertical]) over the R11 Meta.
I was wondering the same: if you have a couple subwoofers, is it worth going from an R7 (or 5) to an R11? It seems that both floorstanders are right there at the two lowest octaves, and having subwoofers should cover that. We´re talking about a middle to small room, for a larger one it may not be the case.
 
I was wondering the same: if you have a couple subwoofers, is it worth going from an R7 (or 5) to an R11? It seems that both floorstanders are right there at the two lowest octaves, and having subwoofers should cover that. We´re talking about a middle to small room, for a larger one it may not be the case.
I’m weighing buying the R7 Metas and R6 Meta Center right now and was thinking about the R11’s but, with a subwoofer, I truly don’t think R11’s are worth the premium over the R7. They’ll be the same pretty much. Without a subwoofer, the R11’s seem like the right choice though
 
I was wondering the same: if you have a couple subwoofers, is it worth going from an R7 (or 5) to an R11? It seems that both floorstanders are right there at the two lowest octaves, and having subwoofers should cover that. We´re talking about a middle to small room, for a larger one it may not be the case.
Or use 3 identical kef meta center speakers for front stage its the best way to go for movies Thx advice, and kef said they can be used in that way also.
With the use of subwoofers towers are a waste of money, the center/monitor can play even loud above 80hz
 
Or use 3 identical kef meta center speakers for front stage its the best way to go for movies Thx advice, and kef said they can be used in that way also.
With the use of subwoofers towers are a waste of money, the center/monitor can play even loud above 80hz
The floorstanders may actually be interesting to use with Dirac ART. Same thought goes for seven R6c speakers and subwoofers.
 
Or use 3 identical kef meta center speakers for front stage its the best way to go for movies Thx advice, and kef said they can be used in that way also.
With the use of subwoofers towers are a waste of money, the center/monitor can play even loud above 80hz
Sometimes there are differences between vertical and horizontal measurements of same speakers. I wonder how R6s are measured vertical and horizontal?
 
Thank you :) I am not sure that narrower directivity at vertical position cause any problems above 4-5k.? I mean comparing with horizontal positioning.
The towers have the same lay-out( most towers are centers with extra basewoofers) , if the front speakers are behind a screen the center is best used vertical like the left right speakers.
But if you sit in the sweet spot there are no problems.
 
Last edited:
I’m weighing buying the R7 Metas and R6 Meta Center right now and was thinking about the R11’s but, with a subwoofer, I truly don’t think R11’s are worth the premium over the R7. They’ll be the same pretty much. Without a subwoofer, the R11’s seem like the right choice though

To be honest, I haven't been impressed with the R11 LF performance. I have tried a bunch of Kef speakers: the R11 was my first replacement of the 1990s Reference Fours. Well, that wasn't a fair comparison (talking LF only). Next, I tried the R900s which really blew the R11 away in my opinion. The R11 might be more controlled (so they say), but it's lacking the "oomph" factor (I know, I know, that's what subwoofer are for. But still. Anything above 80Hz matters). That's to me where the Reference 5 shines: it has the same number (4) and diameter (6.5") of LF drivers but that's where the comparisons stop. The Reference drivers are completely different, with totally different internal LF enclosures.

ScreenHunter 871.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom