Why adjustment to crossover point is significant change? It can be anywhere. But resulting frequency response matters. I mean what the difference in crossover point if frequency response is seamless? I do not see any crossover joint.
-
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 R3 meta Measurements
- Thread starter Nuyes
- Start date
-
- Tags
- kef kef r3 kef r3 meta r3 meta
It can have an impact on distortion and directivity. Directivity will be captured in the spin, but not distortion
MacCali
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2020
- Messages
- 1,175
- Likes
- 574
Agreed. I am planning on adding subs to my room even with the issues I am having, but I am going to get duel driver design like the Kef kc or svs micro 3000 cause my other issue is rattle. If one works with no issue I’m going to probably grab a second sub as well. Even though I’m pretty sure one sub will already overload my room
Agree fully, but only if the sub is well dampened. Otherwise sounds will climb one over the other and the general sound becomes muddy and undefined.
Ha! FINALLY! Someone who likes my highbrow approach...thanks for the advice. At one point, i was tempted by the R3s, but they still left me undecided. They remain are under consideration, though. P.
Hi,
I measured the KEF R3 meta loudspeakers this time.
These speakers have just been released, but I was able to get a pre-order sample (a pair) from an audiophile in Korea.
View attachment 266010
Impedance
View attachment 266011View attachment 266012
Frequency response
View attachment 266013
I measure HF responses using a 5ms window gating.
Therefore, the crossover frequency of this speaker was located lower than I could measure, so I could not use the 'Merging Nearfield + Farfield' technique.
It has a similar LF roll-off to its predecessor.
View attachment 266014
Here's a comparison of 'ported vs sealed' responses.
(This was done with nearfiled measurements, with baffle step compensation applied).
Directivity
View attachment 266015View attachment 266016View attachment 266017View attachment 266018
Wow. That's really cool.
I'm noticing a huge improvement in the 15~20k compared to before.
On the outside, it looks like the exact same product as its predecessor, but the directivity definitely seems to be a step up.
While this may not be important to all users, I can't help but admire KEF's passion and skill in achieving performance improvements despite the seemingly identical design.
(Perhaps it's a fine-tuning of the lemon squeezer on tweeter?)
Beamwidth
View attachment 266019View attachment 266020
It looks as complete as anything you'll see in this price range.
(In South Korea, it's currently available for around $1,700 to $1,800).
Polar plot
View attachment 266021View attachment 266022
This loudspeaker shows almost perfectly smooth attenuation, not only in the front, but also in the sides and back.
Total Harmonic Distortion
I am representing THD relative data as CHD.
This is the percentage of each HD component based on the average SPL from 200 Hz to 10 kHz.
View attachment 266023View attachment 266024View attachment 266025View attachment 266026
You can hear a very clean response at 85dB SPL and even at 95dB SPL.
It's flawless.
Multitone test
View attachment 266027View attachment 266028
Multitone distortion of -40 to -50 dB were measured.
I tried removing the measurement signal below 80 Hz and measuring it.
This was done to see how much the effects of MD from the woofer's high displacement motion and ports could be reduced when used with a subwoofer.
View attachment 266029
And if anyone remembers, this product also had the "shadow flare" issue that was featured in Erin's Audio Corner.
So I measured how much the MD was changed by this as well.
(The effect on FR can be seen below).
View attachment 266030
MD for each SPL.
View attachment 266031View attachment 266032
Despite the increase in output, there is very little increase in Multitone Distortion.
This is a strong defense against distortion.
Compression test
View attachment 266033
This test was performed with Multitone.
It shows a compression of only 0.5 dB even at 96 dB SPL.
Very powerful performance.
Here's a look at compression testing from the other side.
These were performed at 0.1 m and 1 m, respectively, and measured with a sine sweep.
View attachment 266034View attachment 266035
We can see that the response of the woofer increased with the increase in SPL at 45Hz.
This means that the internal air pressure along the port did not remain linear.
In other words, above a certain sound pressure, the ports in this speaker lose a little bit of their effectiveness.
(All SPL values are based on output at 1kHz @1m)
Grill test
View attachment 266036
The grille is affected by a very high Q value.
Shadow flare
View attachment 266037
I measured the impact of Shadow flare, which we introduced in EAC.
(I don't own this loudspeaker, so I wasn't able to push the part very hard).
You can see that there is a dip centered around 1 kHz.
(Pressing in the Shadow flare will correct this).
View attachment 266038
Finally, the FR deviation comparison between the two samples.
View attachment 266039
A very personal thought.
KEF's precise directional control is truly amazing.
Its predecessor was good enough, but it's even better than I expected.
If I had to pick a downside...
The bass is weak.
Also, due to the compression at high SPL, I think it would be a bit too much for me to enjoy a movie without a subwoofer.
Of course, I was just nitpicking because it was so great.
(I envy the owner.)
Looove this parallel, eloquent discussionCheapest I can find that is $25. With this multifunctionality Kef are adding, the value proposition gets even better.
Perhaps the voice coils can do double duty as a toaster too (with apologies to Tim Cook)?
Well, we're having a dilemma, haven't we we...
Then what are we to do when wanting realism? For, when in performance, musicians are constantly on the move showing off not only musical skills but acting out the pre-programmed show, be it a rock concert, opera, theater, broadway show,etc. Opera, for example, has fundamentally changed in the past 30 years. In the past, the singers just stood there like statues and sang. Today, this is not enough. You have to also be an actor, and preferably, a good one. So if one listens to live recordings, the movements of the musicians have to be recorded, too. This is why I fully agree with Toole when he strongly advocates multichannel music recordings. Studio is another cattle of fish, though. Here I agree with you when it comes to rock and its derivatives, as well as jazz combos or big band.
Good SACD 5.1 and ATMOS music rules!
What is the ETA for the review to bdd we published?
Thanks. What about the R3 metas, since i could get the R3s, but only used or if new, from small, unknown dealers. The big guys such as Crutchfield with 60 days return, won't have'em anymore. P.
And, yeah, amazon also has them, but used. I m kinda leary. Some ppl say the highs are better on the metas, but are they smooth?
Yep!
Wow!!!@Descartes:
It wasn't a 5 euro cable.
It was a special cable, shielded with ferrites, special plugs and various other things.
But I don't think it cost 300 euros either... at most 20nor do I believe that the R3 Metas are worth 2200 euros (in Italy the old 4.5 million lire !!!).
Prices are out of control and if the dealers take advantage, see also the power cables of some models 1000 euros per metre, it's madness.
Returning to 3D as suggested, the only thing is to accept them and if possible make a comparison with R3 and R3 Meta.
Many times these small speaker differences are purely commercial, there are 20 year old speakers that can sound better than these modern ones.
I should do the test within the month of June and then evaluate, of course I'll also tell you my impressions.
If other forum users manage to do it sooner, their opinion will be very interesting.
See you soon.
2045.4545 lire per 1 €? When I lived in Italy in the summer of 1977, the parity was 'only' 948 to $1. Tempora mutantur, la economia e la stessa
I FULLY feel ur pain. My father whom i loved to no end died of Lou Gehrig's disease. Like you, I find this forum a pleasant place with tremendous tech and subjective input, place to learn and muse. And, like you, I beg everyone to be kind to family and friends, cuz they need it, believe me. P.
Original R3s are still available directly from KEF (at least in Canada).
KEF R3 Meta - Review & Measurements by Erin
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_r3_meta/
www.audiosciencereview.com
Good morning.
Yesterday I listened to the R3 Meta.
I didn't bring my old R3s for direct comparison (I didn't have time to take them apart and load them in my car).
I listened to songs that I know well, the impression was that of a slightly more open soundstage than the old R3 and they also had greater attention and presence of small details in the mid-high range, small nuances such as guitar or violin string plucks and some very small details on the voice and other instruments were certainly more evident.
Despite this I have to say with great amazement that I did not like them.
The main reason is that on medium-high frequencies they were sometimes annoying (I felt like covering my ears with my hands) too strong and present, I can't understand the reason but this was the impression I got.
On the one hand, that little more detail they gave was very nice, but on the other hand, that annoyance that emerged on some medium-high frequencies was unbearable!
How come? the "Meta" treatment shouldn't take away this problem.
On the forum I read that in the mid-high range the Meta series is less present and controlled than the old R3 series, but from the listening test I did I got the totally opposite impression
Could it have been the fault of a wrong match between Electronics Speakers and Cables?
The amplifier was a Hegel 590 and the silver Chord Cables......but as I said, I find the sound of the old R3s warmer and less aggressive in the mid-highs.
Another option is that the modification of the Crossover of the R3 Meta has emphasized too much this medium-high frequencies.
The shop told me that a customer with direct comparison (R3 Meta and non-meta) preferred and bought the old R3???
I went to buy them but I'm not at all sure, is it the case that I do other tests with another amplifier? (I can bring my Nad 399).
I was very confused, and I'm starting to think that if I put the dirac module on my Nad I can achieve better results, but I'm not writing to say this thing about the module (it's just my thought) I want to stay focused on the Kef R3 vs R3 Meta speech, everything else doesn't matter because a speaker must sound good on its own without adding equalizations especially if it has been updated to have higher quality.
I wanted to tell you about my experience, maybe it's useful or can make some users think......
In the next few days I'll listen again even if I'm less and less motivated to switch to the new model.
Do you have any opinion?
Have you also had the opportunity to listen to the new Meta model?
What impressions did you have the same as mine or different?
Thank you in advance.
Yesterday I listened to the R3 Meta.
I didn't bring my old R3s for direct comparison (I didn't have time to take them apart and load them in my car).
I listened to songs that I know well, the impression was that of a slightly more open soundstage than the old R3 and they also had greater attention and presence of small details in the mid-high range, small nuances such as guitar or violin string plucks and some very small details on the voice and other instruments were certainly more evident.
Despite this I have to say with great amazement that I did not like them.
The main reason is that on medium-high frequencies they were sometimes annoying (I felt like covering my ears with my hands) too strong and present, I can't understand the reason but this was the impression I got.
On the one hand, that little more detail they gave was very nice, but on the other hand, that annoyance that emerged on some medium-high frequencies was unbearable!
How come? the "Meta" treatment shouldn't take away this problem.
On the forum I read that in the mid-high range the Meta series is less present and controlled than the old R3 series, but from the listening test I did I got the totally opposite impression
Could it have been the fault of a wrong match between Electronics Speakers and Cables?
The amplifier was a Hegel 590 and the silver Chord Cables......but as I said, I find the sound of the old R3s warmer and less aggressive in the mid-highs.
Another option is that the modification of the Crossover of the R3 Meta has emphasized too much this medium-high frequencies.
The shop told me that a customer with direct comparison (R3 Meta and non-meta) preferred and bought the old R3???
I went to buy them but I'm not at all sure, is it the case that I do other tests with another amplifier? (I can bring my Nad 399).
I was very confused, and I'm starting to think that if I put the dirac module on my Nad I can achieve better results, but I'm not writing to say this thing about the module (it's just my thought) I want to stay focused on the Kef R3 vs R3 Meta speech, everything else doesn't matter because a speaker must sound good on its own without adding equalizations especially if it has been updated to have higher quality.
I wanted to tell you about my experience, maybe it's useful or can make some users think......
In the next few days I'll listen again even if I'm less and less motivated to switch to the new model.
Do you have any opinion?
Have you also had the opportunity to listen to the new Meta model?
What impressions did you have the same as mine or different?
Thank you in advance.
HarmonicTHD
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,890
You didn’t listen “blindly” and in a different room (dealer vs home) and not in direct comparison to the non Meta R3. So I wouldn’t put any weight on your subjective impressions. Get them both at home, level match and try again.
Yep, the two biggest confounding variables in your KEF R3 comparison were 1) two different rooms 2) way too much time, meaning you were relying on really flawed memory of what your speakers sound like.
The only way to compare them is the same room, same time.
The only way to compare them is the same room, same time.
Similar threads
