I'd say, not really. The only drawback is that the LS50 might fail sooner because of active elecronics, but still they're great speakers as long as they aren't run very loud and get a graciously high subwoofer crossover frequency.
-
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
- Joined
- May 22, 2020
- Messages
- 571
- Likes
- 257
I have the passive ls50 meta. But your input is a valid thanks.
Ohh so then it's even more alright. Just ask yourself: is there something that bothers you? If yes, can you put it into words? If not, there isn't really a change needed. Just set up your whole system like you have and run a REW measurement. See if Dirac does its job, if there aren't any weird distortions and reverb is okay too. If everything looks good, congrats, you got a top tier audio system.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,112
- Likes
- 17,961
I would say as always it depends
on the personal preferences and listening setup in terms of higher fidelity vs higher SPL, see for example:
I swapped Ls50 for an R3 meta ….im I imagining
how big is your room and how much space between the walls? 4.5 x 4.1 … about 310 high About 1m away from front walll and 1m to side walls Roughly 2.8 metres in front of me
www.audiosciencereview.com
The OP is using subs, so he is basically not straining the uniqs on the ls50I would say as always it depends
I swapped Ls50 for an R3 meta ….im I imagining
how big is your room and how much space between the walls? 4.5 x 4.1 … about 310 high About 1m away from front walll and 1m to side walls Roughly 2.8 metres in front of me
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,112
- Likes
- 17,961
Still at very high SPLs it makes a difference as a sub is crossed usually around 80-125 Hz while the R3 has a much higher Uni-Q crossover at 420 Hz.
Got a pair of non-meta R3 for my surrounds at a good second hand deal. Now my KEF coaxial system is complete
- Joined
- May 22, 2020
- Messages
- 571
- Likes
- 257
Enjoy.Got a pair of non-meta R3 for my surrounds at a good second hand deal. Now my KEF coaxial system is complete
Should I get the R3 meta for 1200-1300 Euro or pay 800 Euro for the LS50 meta?
I was also looking at the Yamaha HS8 or HS80 active speakers that are around 500 Euro a pair, the HS8, or a used one the HS80s for around 250 Euro.
I need a balanced sound accurate, none fatiguing, currently I have the Wharfedale Diamond 10.2 or 11.2 that sound decent.
I was also looking at the Yamaha HS8 or HS80 active speakers that are around 500 Euro a pair, the HS8, or a used one the HS80s for around 250 Euro.
I need a balanced sound accurate, none fatiguing, currently I have the Wharfedale Diamond 10.2 or 11.2 that sound decent.
- Joined
- May 22, 2020
- Messages
- 571
- Likes
- 257
If you have a sub ls50 m could be an option if you want to save money. Without a sub r3 m hands on.
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
It depends on your size tolerance, desired low frequency extension, listening distance and desired SPL. If you need extended bass response and lower distortion and can accommodate the size, the R3 is a better choice. I traded OG LS50s for R3s for those reasons.
1200-1300 for a pair of R3 Meta is a crazy deal. I usually never see them for below 2200€ a pair.
I would for sure go for the R3 meta.
The LS50 will need a subwoofer and are output limited because of their smaller drivers and the Yamaha HS8 is pretty much outdated.
That said the LS50 with a carefully placed sub IMO are far more versatile in a variety of real world rooms.
It will entirely depend on how you intend to use them.
To have the cleanest sound possible...
The R3 Meta should in theory be cleaner because their frequency response is way more linear than the LS50 Meta.
You will need to use EQ or room correction for the bass in any case though.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,112
- Likes
- 17,961
It isn't, for example the more important of early reflections (which is close to the predicted in room response) is similar linear on both and directivity of the LS50 Meta is smoother:
From distortion point of view the R3 Meta is of course superior which could be one part of what is called "cleaner".
Last edited:
My minor objection here is the fact we very seldom see measurements on speaker behavior when the <80Hz is not fed into them (and thus distortion is possibly lower as may also be linearity in FR). And there's the benefit of easier bass integration. Naturally you could also use a sub with the R3, but then I ask myself "why get a 3 way?".
I say this as someone who has far more expensive speakers in storage, but I love the LS50 with a sub - they work amazingly well in my room.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,112
- Likes
- 17,961
Amplitude response and harmonic distortion doesn't change much for the above regions in that case as they are mainly frequency dependent but what usually changes and is in my experience more audible than HD is multitone distortion. Erin usually measures it in the past year(s) for both cases, for example for the 3-way R3 Meta the difference isn't as expected as big as for the LS50 Meta:
(source: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_r3_meta/ )
(source: https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_ls50_meta/ )
Even on the LS50 Meta though the difference is the most audible midrange isn't large, there are other 2-ways which show larger contrast there.
Similar threads
