- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 12,113
- Likes
- 17,004
Often doesn't fit in shot with speakers .
Sometimes Amir forgets.
Pretty comprehensive list : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/asr-panthers.11541/
-
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
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Sometimes Amir forgets.
Pretty comprehensive list : https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/asr-panthers.11541/
Thank you very much, jimbob54. What about The postman Panther then?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 12,113
- Likes
- 17,004
ASR Panthers
Headless Panther The fear of audio companies - this headless panther signifies a poorly engineered product. Measurements of the product typically show bottom-of-the-pile performance and/or false claims by the product vendor. Sometimes the product is broken in a way that lends it unusable or...
www.audiosciencereview.com
Please have a look at the measurement image below. Purple and teal are WITHOUT COVERS, using my KEF Reference 3 Meta "naked". Red and blue are WITH COVERS. I am surprised by this 2 dB drop in the HF range since these covers are pretty expensive and KEF advertises them as "crystal clear without altering the sound".
I just need an opinion here. Is this reasonable and in the range of "can't be done better" for magnetic cloth covers or should I really expect linearity even with covers?
Edit: Oh, purple and red are at 0,5m pretty much on axis. Teal and blue are 30° and about 1m distance.
I just need an opinion here. Is this reasonable and in the range of "can't be done better" for magnetic cloth covers or should I really expect linearity even with covers?
Edit: Oh, purple and red are at 0,5m pretty much on axis. Teal and blue are 30° and about 1m distance.
I expected worse than this when you cover the UNIQ. You are basically introducing another cheap plastic ring over the carefully designed plastic ring(shadow flare) which is a critical design element for the sound of the UNIQ.
Good that the grill isn’t creating any diffraction as that’s worse than this. Also UNIQ grills are the most easiest grills which you can put on and put off while listening. If I were you I would have left the grills on the woofers and left the uniqs naked.
I think of R11 Meta’s logical/ possibly closest competitor as MoFi’ Sourcepoint 888.
Both use a coaxial for everything from the +/- lower mid-range up, roughly similar size three-way floorstanders with multiple woofers.
And here in Australia the R11 Meta are just 5% more than the MoFi 888: 11,500 v 11,000. I was surprised to see that in America they are as much as 30% more at 6500 v 5000.
So very close competitors in approach, though depending on where you live not necessarily in price
Both use a coaxial for everything from the +/- lower mid-range up, roughly similar size three-way floorstanders with multiple woofers.
And here in Australia the R11 Meta are just 5% more than the MoFi 888: 11,500 v 11,000. I was surprised to see that in America they are as much as 30% more at 6500 v 5000.
So very close competitors in approach, though depending on where you live not necessarily in price
To me the Kef’s bass alignment is a bit ”odd”. The 888 has two 8 inch woofers. While the R11 four * 6.5 inch, with a “kind-of EBS” alignment. I say kind-of because my understanding of EBS is you get a bit of a dip as a trade-off for gaining more bass extension.
The Kef has one-size smaller woofers but twice as many, so its total woofer displacement is probably around ¼ more than the 888.
It has an EBS dip (35 - 70 Hz) so you’d think it would go a little lower. But reading off the estimated in-room graph both there f3’s are in the mid 30s.
Unless I'm missing something it’s got the dip without any further extension.
The Kef has one-size smaller woofers but twice as many, so its total woofer displacement is probably around ¼ more than the 888.
It has an EBS dip (35 - 70 Hz) so you’d think it would go a little lower. But reading off the estimated in-room graph both there f3’s are in the mid 30s.
Unless I'm missing something it’s got the dip without any further extension.
Distortion
With very similar directivity, smoothness, and (bass dip aside) FR curve - this should be the decider
From memory the 888’s THD is at a higher level. But THD doesn’t correlate “overly well” with perceived clarity.
So while the Kef is better on that metric, you’d need to either
- Ideally of course, hear them next to each other. ie find a retailer selling both brands who has both models available for audition. I haven’t fully checked but suspect that might not be possible
- Or see the IMD measurements
It would be great if Amir began testing IMD. … Erin gets it from Klippel but maybe he uses a different version to Amir(??)
With very similar directivity, smoothness, and (bass dip aside) FR curve - this should be the decider
From memory the 888’s THD is at a higher level. But THD doesn’t correlate “overly well” with perceived clarity.
So while the Kef is better on that metric, you’d need to either
- Ideally of course, hear them next to each other. ie find a retailer selling both brands who has both models available for audition. I haven’t fully checked but suspect that might not be possible
- Or see the IMD measurements
It would be great if Amir began testing IMD. … Erin gets it from Klippel but maybe he uses a different version to Amir(??)
I mentioned how wide apart the relative pricing in two countries. In America the Kefs are 30% more, while in Australia only 5% more.
As Professor Sumner Miller (1960s tv scientist) used to say “why is it so?”
The American market is a dozen times larger than here so far more important.
My guess - Kef in America is working on a bigger margin, taking advantage of being a respected long-established brand. While MoFi America is operating on a slimmer one to be more competitive and help get established.
As Professor Sumner Miller (1960s tv scientist) used to say “why is it so?”
The American market is a dozen times larger than here so far more important.
My guess - Kef in America is working on a bigger margin, taking advantage of being a respected long-established brand. While MoFi America is operating on a slimmer one to be more competitive and help get established.
The all important ”audiophile bottom-line” - which is the better speaker?
From what I remember the only standout difference is that the Kefs maximum SPL is a fair bit louder! lol
Their measured sensitivity is 90 dB v the 888’s 86 dB.
Plus higher power handling. Though I suspect it’s not apples and apples
Kef state up to 300 watts, MoFi up to 120. I suspect one’s a stretch - could that tweeter really handle 300 watts? I wouldn’t want to try it.
And the other is conservative. Andrew Jones has used an amp of more than 500 wpc on his. Although he did bottom out the woofers, apparently without damage.
But maximum SPL sure ain’t audiophile quality, so which is better?
I don’t think it can be called, certainly not conclusively - until we have IMD figures on the Kef
(and up to 120 watts)
From what I remember the only standout difference is that the Kefs maximum SPL is a fair bit louder! lol
Their measured sensitivity is 90 dB v the 888’s 86 dB.
Plus higher power handling. Though I suspect it’s not apples and apples
Kef state up to 300 watts, MoFi up to 120. I suspect one’s a stretch - could that tweeter really handle 300 watts? I wouldn’t want to try it.
And the other is conservative. Andrew Jones has used an amp of more than 500 wpc on his. Although he did bottom out the woofers, apparently without damage.
But maximum SPL sure ain’t audiophile quality, so which is better?
I don’t think it can be called, certainly not conclusively - until we have IMD figures on the Kef
(and up to 120 watts)
exm
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2021
- Messages
- 320
- Likes
- 276
Kef Reference 5
Well, I just came across a deal that was too good to pass up. A pair of open box R11 a couple of hours away from me was available on ebay for a starting bid of 350 each with two separate listings. Only a couple of other people bidding on the first one. I figured after winning the first one there was a good chance I would be the only one bidding on the second. So just a little over 900.00 for the pair including taxes. One of them ended up being new factory sealed. The other while still unused with all of the packaging and accessories intact, I could tell the box had been opened.
I wasn't in the marked for these(but was very curious about the ls60 given their very small footprint)but at that price, it was too good to pass up and could easily recoup my funds if I didn't like them. These were going in our sitting room that had just been remodled. My current speaker was a pair of kef 107 that I absolutely love. But the wife said they were now too much of an eye sore with the newly remoded room. Let me tell you a little background on my journey in this room. I went from a completely restored Klipsch cornwall to vintage b&w 802 series 3, to carver amazings( this is were I completely fell in love with ribbons), then Apogee duetta II. If I could have kept the duettas, I would have. I've listed to a lot of speakers in my life, some way north of 25,000. These were the second best speakers I've heard in my life with focal grand utopias being the best. Unfortunately, the room is a modest size room at 13x17, but it is opened to the dining room which is open to the kitchen which is also open to the family room. So the apogees were too physical imposing in that space, so after some time they had to go. I still have them stored away. Just can't part with a speaker that sounds that good.
Now this brings me to the 107s. So the 107 came available at a really good price and after reading so much about them thoughout the years I decided to try them out. While they are no apogees, I was floored with how good they sounded. With the kube easily got effortless extension down to 15hzat only 3db no less. So I didn't have to dial it in much. Given the kube is essentially an eq taylored to the 107s, I decided I would have a more flexibility with rew, so I put the kube away. I only eq'ed them up to 500hz and left the rest alone. So how do the much newer R11 sound with all of this equisit new technology. Stock sound, to my surprise they were completely blown away by the 107.
The R11 are over all a more technically capable speaker, definitely better tweeter. The build of the 107 is also much better, even on the inside with all thick gauge air core inductors in the crossover. The 107 really were way ahead of their time. Curved time aligned mid/tweeter housing and the port for the bass cabinet is on top right in front of the mid/tweet housing and is also time aligned with them. All of the sound including the bass comes from roughly the same place. The result is imaging so good, I can sit directly in front of one speaker and the center image is still goes the five feet behind them they are from the front wall. They perform a disapearing act the reminds me of the way the utopias did it. This post is long enough, so I won't go into many details about the sound differences between the two.
But!! I have spent a considerable amount of them with doing room correction with the R11. I have been experiementing with using both filters and the inversion method with rew. I've been able to get them dialed in to the point of being as good in some ways(ex. soundstage depth ), better in others(ex. imaging), but still just can't compete with the 107's bass. I've spent several days trying to get them to sound good enough to replace the according to my wife ugly looking 107. But all I did with the 107s was a quick and dirty eq to tame the bass. What if I put that same effort in dialing them in? I may never know. But over all I'm now happy with them. People really under estimate the detrimental effect a room can have on speakers. I think they are a good value at their retail. But they are not the giant killers some on the internet say they are. But when you factor in their looks and small footprint along with sound, I can see why they are as popular as they are. I can't deny, they are lookers. Well according to the wife. : )
I wasn't in the marked for these(but was very curious about the ls60 given their very small footprint)but at that price, it was too good to pass up and could easily recoup my funds if I didn't like them. These were going in our sitting room that had just been remodled. My current speaker was a pair of kef 107 that I absolutely love. But the wife said they were now too much of an eye sore with the newly remoded room. Let me tell you a little background on my journey in this room. I went from a completely restored Klipsch cornwall to vintage b&w 802 series 3, to carver amazings( this is were I completely fell in love with ribbons), then Apogee duetta II. If I could have kept the duettas, I would have. I've listed to a lot of speakers in my life, some way north of 25,000. These were the second best speakers I've heard in my life with focal grand utopias being the best. Unfortunately, the room is a modest size room at 13x17, but it is opened to the dining room which is open to the kitchen which is also open to the family room. So the apogees were too physical imposing in that space, so after some time they had to go. I still have them stored away. Just can't part with a speaker that sounds that good.
Now this brings me to the 107s. So the 107 came available at a really good price and after reading so much about them thoughout the years I decided to try them out. While they are no apogees, I was floored with how good they sounded. With the kube easily got effortless extension down to 15hzat only 3db no less. So I didn't have to dial it in much. Given the kube is essentially an eq taylored to the 107s, I decided I would have a more flexibility with rew, so I put the kube away. I only eq'ed them up to 500hz and left the rest alone. So how do the much newer R11 sound with all of this equisit new technology. Stock sound, to my surprise they were completely blown away by the 107.
The R11 are over all a more technically capable speaker, definitely better tweeter. The build of the 107 is also much better, even on the inside with all thick gauge air core inductors in the crossover. The 107 really were way ahead of their time. Curved time aligned mid/tweeter housing and the port for the bass cabinet is on top right in front of the mid/tweet housing and is also time aligned with them. All of the sound including the bass comes from roughly the same place. The result is imaging so good, I can sit directly in front of one speaker and the center image is still goes the five feet behind them they are from the front wall. They perform a disapearing act the reminds me of the way the utopias did it. This post is long enough, so I won't go into many details about the sound differences between the two.
But!! I have spent a considerable amount of them with doing room correction with the R11. I have been experiementing with using both filters and the inversion method with rew. I've been able to get them dialed in to the point of being as good in some ways(ex. soundstage depth ), better in others(ex. imaging), but still just can't compete with the 107's bass. I've spent several days trying to get them to sound good enough to replace the according to my wife ugly looking 107. But all I did with the 107s was a quick and dirty eq to tame the bass. What if I put that same effort in dialing them in? I may never know. But over all I'm now happy with them. People really under estimate the detrimental effect a room can have on speakers. I think they are a good value at their retail. But they are not the giant killers some on the internet say they are. But when you factor in their looks and small footprint along with sound, I can see why they are as popular as they are. I can't deny, they are lookers. Well according to the wife. : )
My, honestly pretty narrow, audio experience so far has been that LOWER sensitivy speakers around generally flatter and nicer. A higher sensivity for me always hints at less controlled frequency response or distortion, which I think is pretty often a good rule of thumb. Especially in passive speakers.
As for the power handling, it's usually tested with pink noise, so tweeter is EXPECTED to get pretty low amounts of power, as is normal in music. If you fire a 10 Khz sine at 90 dB to ANY speaker for more than a few seconds you can kiss the tweeter goodbye. So basically as long as you don't try that you're mostly fine.
And in numbers, if the MoFI has 120 Watt max power but 90dB sensitivy and the KEF 300 Watt but 86 dB, it's actually pretty much the same.
Edit: Yep. I let o1-mini run the numbers and this is the result:
- MoFi Speaker: Approximately 110.8 dB
- KEF Speaker: Approximately 110.8 dB
So basically it should boil down to price, preference and design. But the main thing that somehow bothers me is the "dumb" coaxial MoFi uses. It's just a tweeter and a rather large cone. And large cones/baffles usually hurt tweeter performance. KEF takes pretty much care with that, so I expect highs and maybe even mids to be nicer in KEFs. The MoFi surely will handle bass better. And that's basically the main downside of KEF speakers: There is virtually no speaker from them that can really 100 % be used without subwoofer. But WITH a subwoofer, they become absolut peak. Yeah, the latter line was maximum bias from me, a recent KEF fanguy.
As for exm's statements, yeah the Reference are really something else. Looking at the measurement data compared to the R-Series, they SHOULD NOT be this much better. But they are special in a way I can't put my finger on. I compared the R11 to the KEF Reference 3 and it was an instant win for the reference. The more I think about it, I guess it boiled down to:
a) barely any diffraction problem in the Reference due to a more sophisticated baffle, shadow flare and UniQ
b) significantly better distortion performance over the whole range
c) way batter compression behaviour at loud levels
But to finish my already way too long post, a good way to compare almost identical speakers are quiet, very detailed songs. Try this one, it's completely quiet and calm the whole range but there are so many things going on.
Better distortion handling on the low end area and more SPL. Other than that, nothing much. If you get a sub anyway, you can pick the R7 just fine.
I think the R11 even has a lower tweeter axis, putting the coax pretty close to the floor which for me makes for a less wide and pleasant sound.
HipHopPotatoMouse
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2024
- Messages
- 3
- Likes
- 1
Hi folks, I'd appreciate your input for deciding between R11 non-meta at $2200 and R5 Meta at $1900. I'll pair them with SVS PC2000, and Onix RCS200 center. My room is ~17.5' wide and 22' deep. Speaker placement is peculiar, inside a media furniture, ~2' deep 10.5" wide and 5' tall.
I demoed R3 Metas in room w/ Audyssey and LF was a bit lacking -- especially in enjoying bass guitar/double bass. EQ tweaking brought them into an acceptable level. I read thru this whole thread and saw some conflicting opinions, e.g. that R series measure all similarly except from small differences in LF extension; or that Meta improvements can be approximated well with EQ.
R11 seems like the better "deal" but it may not work well with the confined placement into the furniture, and ~9in to the front wall. The left speaker will also have its top woofer semi obstructed from the mid-line by a window - a less than ideal situation. But it will give closest LF extension to my current speaker (Onix LS450s, 38hz), so it can be a all around upgrade. I don't listen loudly so the total output is only as useful as it provides lower distortion.
R5 metas would better fit with their smaller size (11" to front wall, slightly more space on the sides), won't be obstructed. I'd get the Meta upgrade, which measures better in all reviews. It's a newer speaker, so less depreciation. But I'm worried I may still find the LF a little lacking. I can also put the $300 towards a better center or a 2nd sub.
Thoughts?
I demoed R3 Metas in room w/ Audyssey and LF was a bit lacking -- especially in enjoying bass guitar/double bass. EQ tweaking brought them into an acceptable level. I read thru this whole thread and saw some conflicting opinions, e.g. that R series measure all similarly except from small differences in LF extension; or that Meta improvements can be approximated well with EQ.
R11 seems like the better "deal" but it may not work well with the confined placement into the furniture, and ~9in to the front wall. The left speaker will also have its top woofer semi obstructed from the mid-line by a window - a less than ideal situation. But it will give closest LF extension to my current speaker (Onix LS450s, 38hz), so it can be a all around upgrade. I don't listen loudly so the total output is only as useful as it provides lower distortion.
R5 metas would better fit with their smaller size (11" to front wall, slightly more space on the sides), won't be obstructed. I'd get the Meta upgrade, which measures better in all reviews. It's a newer speaker, so less depreciation. But I'm worried I may still find the LF a little lacking. I can also put the $300 towards a better center or a 2nd sub.
Thoughts?
ban25
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2022
- Messages
- 1,137
- Likes
- 1,156
I think you're going to find the LF of the R series lacking regardless, so my recommendation based on your stated options would be the R5 Meta, which will fit better in your space, paired with a 2nd sub that will provide you the requisite LF output.
Similar threads
