KEF R11 Meta Tower Speaker Review

[Rick Sykora]

Thanks @amirm. Good to have another large tower in the review stable.

Hope you had help getting it on the Klippel!

 

[RandomEar]

I wonder how much better KEF R11 meta is vs older "just" R11 model. In Europe KEF sells older model for 3998€ (some stores offer way under that) and meta is 6500€.

Is the difference worth 2500€ ?

Kef does offer basic spinorama results + impedance in their whitepapers:

R11 [1]

R11 Meta [2]

I honestly can't see any major differences in the spinorama, apart from a very small change in directivity above 3 kHz (derived from the different slopes of the early reflections). The minimum impedance is slightly lower on the Meta, though. Also, these measurements don't show the 1.2 kHz dip that Amir measures and which has been confirmed by KEF. A bit odd that they publish this "clean" spin but appear to use another measurement for internal reference (?).

 

[Ron Texas]

/Thank you @amirm for another great review and set of measurements. Somehow you were able to get this big boy moved around. My overall reaction is bass is on the light side for such a large speaker although it can take some EQ.

 

[Chromatischism]

I've always had a soft spot for KEF, and I do fancy a pair of these.
The R3 initially measured well but had a surprisingly poor subjective review. But these are different?
I wonder how the R11M compare with some of the Revel floor standers?

The R3 non meta review .

* amir discovered that it excited a bass node in his room later on so he amended his opinions slightly. Nowadays he always counters the room issues before stating any opinions.

* now there is also an R3 META . KEF has done an overhaul of many small details besides the MAT damper . So the R meta should be improved across the whole series.

* it is still subjective, the listening , just saying.

Most of the negative user impressions were due to the upper mid-range, which KEF clearly has refined in its meta versions. These speakers look really good.

 

[fordiebianco]

If you have original 105s, you could check and maybe replace crossover caps, which I gather could drift off over forty several years... (I think HiFi news tested a pair and discovered this).

Sure the 105's are bulky with their bass bin (proper sized bass driver ) and pods on top, but I'd continue with them assuming they're in good working order. Can't believe how speakers like this, which with inflation 'should' be around eight or nine grand, end up today selling for double this amount or more... The old codger growing in me puts it down to greed, but maybe there are hidden costs getting in the way now.

Some time back, Chinese production made for a VERY profitable product once priced for a UK or US market, but since 2008, this may not be quite the case these days..

KEFs these days under the very top models can be got through UK dealer chains I think and prices may be keen if you shop around.

Hi,

the crossovers and tweeters were serviced in 2020, so the internals are sound. They are magnificent beasts, just a very low WAF.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Any measurement conditions stated in the KEF whitepaper?

Cannot emphasize enough how important it is to compare measurements done under the same conditions. All it takes is a few millimeters to make a significant difference (and knowing if any smoothing was applied too!).

 

[Sokel]

Any measurement conditions stated in the KEF whitepaper?

Cannot emphasize enough how important it is to compare measurements done under the same conditions. All it takes is a few millimeters to make a significant difference (and knowing if any smoothing was applied!).

I wondered about it too.
It's hard to find the reference point in a multidriver speaker and I expect the 1.2Khz dip to chance significantly if measured higher or lower.
Does KEF specifies the exact height?

 

[Dmitri]

Thanks for the review Amir! Really loved reading this one!

I purchased the pre-meta R11’s for 3k on closeout, shipping included. Used to be the wife and I went to bed at the same time. For the last 9 months, I’ve been staying up listening to music, eventually dragging myself to bed at some god forsaken hour. Except for the sleep deprivation, I have to say (next to the afore mentioned bride) that the R11’s have proved to be one of my more fortunate decisions.
Not truly knowledgeable about whatever differences there may be between the Meta and non Meta versions of the R11, but I doubt I’ll ever suffer from speaker upgraditus again. These speakers are simply phenomenal.

 

[er|κzvio1in]

Good to see and thanks for the in depth testing, clearly a competent speaker.

View attachment 359199

Looking at this picture and considering the crossover at 200 hz and imagining the impact of room gain on the bass I can't help but think to see this as a passive vertical subwoofer array with a coax speaker incorporated. The vertical stacking of 4 woofers crossed over at 200 should reduce in room local peaks and dips as compared to a single larger woofer.


With a measurement mic, PEQs and placement not too far from the front wall, it should be possible to straighten out the in-room bass performance pretty nicely by leveraging the boundary gain effect.

 

[Frank Dernie]

To show what John Atkinson calls "oil can resonance" of metal tweeters

All dome tweeters have an “oil-can” resonance. In the case of soft domes it is damped to reduce audibility but is in the audio band, in the case of a well designed metal dome it is too high to be audible and therefore pointless to add damping and increase the dome mass, but look like a scary spike to the ignorant on a measurement.

 

[juliangst]

If you can trust KEF's distortion specs, the R11 Meta should be a lot better than the R7 Meta:

R11 Meta:

R7 Meta:

R3 Meta somehow is a bit better than R7 Meta:

 

[Mnyb]

Kef does offer basic spinorama results + impedance in their whitepapers:

R11 [1]
View attachment 359279

R11 Meta [2]
View attachment 359280

I honestly can't see any major differences in the spinorama, apart from a very small change in directivity above 3 kHz (derived from the different slopes of the early reflections). The minimum impedance is slightly lower on the Meta, though. Also, these measurements don't show the 1.2 kHz dip that Amir measures and which has been confirmed by KEF. A bit odd that they publish this "clean" spin but appear to use another measurement for internal reference (?).

The 1,2kHz dip may be the shadowflare issue that plagues R series , you need to whack the ring around the midrange into place properly .

 

[vesalaasanen]

Thanks, @amirm , great review, as always. I've been wondering about this kind of multi-bass driver tower and Klippel measurements. When the speaker is on the floor, you get virtually almost 3 times longer column of bass drivers than with anechoic measurement (outer drivers distance vs top driver to floor distance x 2), so in the real world, the vertical directivity beaming should reach far lower than with anechoic measurements making the ceiling bounce very different. This should have a significant influence on vertical standing waves in the room. Is there a way to simulate the floor bounce effects on bass frequencies with Klippel software?

 

[Talisman]

Good morning @amirm , as always thanks for the review. As regards the dynamic compression graph at three different SPL levels, I wonder if it could be included by default in the speaker reviews, even more so in those of bookshelf speakers which can suffer more than towers when the volume increases.
Thank you

 

[Ze Frog]

Bit too expensive for my wallet, although I look forward to maybe getting a pair off eBay in 5-10 years and giving them a try.

 

[Biblob]

Great speaker and engineering! I wonder, because of the height of the tweeter, does one need to sit relatively low to the ground? Because the vertical directivity is very smooth and relatively wide, I don't think it will result in a change in tonality. But I wonder if at the least it'll make the phantom image relatively low too, when one would sit a bit higher than the tweeter?

 

[Vacceo]

Great speakers, really hit the value sweet spot in the KEF lineup. Sure the Reference Meta series have better drivers, but the R11 holds up very well even when played loud.

Duking it out with the Perlisten R series perhaps for engineering excellence at a sensible price, though the Perlisten R7T are £8,800 v £5,500 for the R11 Meta.

Great review @amirm thank you.

Price aside, and looking at spinoramas, I´d say I´d go for KEF because I really like the almost symetrical directivity in the vertical and horizontal axis instead of the narrow directivity on the vertical axis of the Perlistens. Pure preference, there´s nothing wrong with one or the other.

If you can trust KEF's distortion specs, the R11 Meta should be a lot better than the R7 Meta:

R11 Meta:
View attachment 359293

R7 Meta:
View attachment 359294
R3 Meta somehow is a bit better than R7 Meta:
View attachment 359295

I guess that makes sense considering the use case of each one of those speakers. Seems like the R11 are meant for large spaces, hence the expectation of rising the sound pressure. The R7, conversy, are probably meant for smaller spaces, hence, less SPL. All in all, at lower volumes, the perception of distortion should be smaller too.

 

[Svet Angelov]

Curse my champagne taste and beer pockets.

 

[dtaylo1066]

A $7,000 pair of speakers should have great measurements and be of impeccable design. But many do not. It seems that KEF has done their homework and produced a top-notch loudspeaker. Good, if not great, for them and the eventual buyer!

 

[ExUnoPlura]

A decade of listening both stereo and home theater, I settled with KEF around 15 years ago, Monitor Audio is my secondary choice. I'm glad the R11 Meta measures handsomely, this feels good.

Me too. Well, at least for the moment. I think they are very good value and I like their aesthetics in most contemporary spaces.