• 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: 8 1.6%
  • 3. Fine (happy panther)

    Votes: 90 17.7%
  • 4. Great (golfing panther)

    Votes: 406 79.8%

  • Total voters
    509
Excuse me if this has been addressed before. How does this graph square with the a 330 Hz (some older data sheets say 400 Hz crossover frequency as specified by KEF?

This looks more like a 190 Hz -6 dB point = XO frequency to me.

Edit: I wondered if with the measurement below being nearfield the far field would look different due to baffle step. However, with its 20 cm baffle width, the drop from baffle step would start at a much higher frequency than either 190 or 330 Hz. I would also assume this was measured with the crossover in place, but it looks like the regular closed box 12 dB/oct drop off of a MF driver in a sealed compartment. Very confusing!

Bonus question: why is the XO frequency all over the place with R3, R5, R7 and R11, with no correlation to LF size or overall speaker size?
View attachment 419958
Hi @capslock,

Nearfield measurements are useful for isolating the effects of each individual driver, but they aren't quite correct in the crossover region. This is because many drive units will be sounding simultaneously, and the measurement will only be in the nearfield for one of those drive units. Our crossover specifications are based on sectional, anechoic farfield data. For the R11 Meta, this can be seen below.

1736518758384.png

This shows the true response of the drive units, including positional and radiative information (drive location and baffle step etc.), that the nearfields don't capture.

Nearfield measurement has become standard practice in measurement-based reviews, as it does show the behaviour of an individual driver without messing around with the crossover.

On the other point about the difference in crossover points, I can't comment from my own experience, as I didn't design this range. However, a lower LF/MF crossover point for the larger speaker makes sense to me. This would be due to the large LF "source size" - the drive units are more spread out. This gives a narrower radiation than for a closer spacing of drive units. Therefore to give a smooth transition to the midrange, the LFs must be crossed over lower than if the drivers were tighter positioned. This is why blade is so good, the drive units are close together, so we can cross substantially higher, while still getting the correct directivity profile.
 
Hi @capslock,

Nearfield measurements are useful for isolating the effects of each individual driver, but they aren't quite correct in the crossover region. This is because many drive units will be sounding simultaneously, and the measurement will only be in the nearfield for one of those drive units. Our crossover specifications are based on sectional, anechoic farfield data. For the R11 Meta, this can be seen below.

View attachment 420062
This shows the true response of the drive units, including positional and radiative information (drive location and baffle step etc.), that the nearfields don't capture.

Nearfield measurement has become standard practice in measurement-based reviews, as it does show the behaviour of an individual driver without messing around with the crossover.

On the other point about the difference in crossover points, I can't comment from my own experience, as I didn't design this range. However, a lower LF/MF crossover point for the larger speaker makes sense to me. This would be due to the large LF "source size" - the drive units are more spread out. This gives a narrower radiation than for a closer spacing of drive units. Therefore to give a smooth transition to the midrange, the LFs must be crossed over lower than if the drivers were tighter positioned. This is why blade is so good, the drive units are close together, so we can cross substantially higher, while still getting the correct directivity profile.
Thanks! We were lacking the relative contribution of the drivers in the far field from the Klippel measurements. Would you happen to be able to post a similar graph for the R3 Meta and one of the ones with smaller LF units (R5/R7)?
 
Thanks! We were lacking the relative contribution of the drivers in the far field from the Klippel measurements. Would you happen to be able to post a similar graph for the R3 Meta and one of the ones with smaller LF units (R5/R7)?
Sure.
R7 Meta
1736524475546.png


R5 Meta
1736524540580.png

R3 Meta

1736525506981.png


As you can see, the LFMF crossover point is higher up on the smaller speakers. However, the drive unit size is a bit different to how you describe. The R5 (and R2) have 5.25" LF drivers, whereas all the other speakers have 6.5" LFs.
 

Attachments

  • 1736525474590.png
    1736525474590.png
    14.4 KB · Views: 29
Thanks. My bad about the driver size of the R7 Meta. So from the graphs, R11M at 330 Hz and R3M at 420 Hz as from their data sheets are spot on. I would interpret the others as 350 Hz for the R7M and 380 Hz for the R5M. Their datasheets both say 400 Hz, hence my confusion.

As you said, a consistent downwards move of the XO with increasing speaker size makes sense and is reflected in the graphs.
 
Hope you guys have some guidance on this topic.

I am planning a Home Cinema with R7 Meta, R6 Meta and just couldn’t help myself and got a pair of R5 (non-meta) as rears in perfect condition for 1k€. Seller told me he couldn’t tell the difference to the METAs in a blind test. My thinking was that saving >1000€ compared to the R3 Metas plus stands is worth it.

Well, now I found a pair of R11s (non-META) for 2600€. But that would be too wild, right?Room has 25sqm. Talk me out of this

R7 Metas will be 4000€ the pair (new).
 
Hope you guys have some guidance on this topic.

I am planning a Home Cinema with R7 Meta, R6 Meta and just couldn’t help myself and got a pair of R5 (non-meta) as rears in perfect condition for 1k€. Seller told me he couldn’t tell the difference to the METAs in a blind test. My thinking was that saving >1000€ compared to the R3 Metas plus stands is worth it.

Well, now I found a pair of R11s (non-META) for 2600€. But that would be too wild, right?Room has 25sqm. Talk me out of this

R7 Metas will be 4000€ the pair (new).

If you're using a home cinema, you really want the Meta center. I think that R11s will be great in your setup.
 
This. I have the Reference 3 and even they are surprisingly lacking in bass probably because they only come with two 6,5" woofers. I think the limit is volume since the KEF are usually really sleek. But as long as you let a sub do a job, it's fine. If you want full range only from speakers you'd need to have huge towers.

There are many speakers on the market smaller than the R11 and play much lower. That is my biggest problem with Kef. Even with a huge floorstander, you needs subs.
 
Back
Top Bottom