KEF R3 meta Measurements

[oversky]

lemon squeezer on tweeter

I can't stop laughing

 

[Music1969]

Another masterful job by @jackocleebrown

This guy is already in the Hall Of Fame for speaker design, as far as I'm concerned

 

[GD Fan]

Based on this graph it may be my next speaker.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Judging on OP's conclusions:
"Bass is weak"

The original R3 never had that issue.

Original R3 always had great bass considering the size

Hi, in my testing and experience the R3 had okay bass for a 3 way with a 6.5" driver as the lower unit.
The port made audible junk below tunning. I always used some sort of high pass even in 2.0.

Reality is that two 6.5", modest excursion drivers can only do so much. Any 8" higher excursion 'subwoofer' would out do a pair of R3's.
Remember 2, 6.5" drive units are about the same SD as a good sized 8". Yes a single 8-9" driver. Give that 8 extra excursion and you already have more output. Now think bigger.

So, in my expereince it was very decent given the design but it was not substantial or out of the ordinary. YMMV based on room size and content and desired SPL levels.

Given its size, the R3 meta has an excellent bass response (FR).

However, to achieve this beautiful bandwidth, the KEF uses ports, which lose a bit of their power at high SPL.

I respect the design of KEF's engineers.

However, contrary to the impression you might get from the FR graph, this speaker is a bit weak on momentary peaks, such as movie explosions.

Again, this is an unnecessary nitpicking about a good enough loudspeaker.

I agree and felt that in my medium sized room subs were required for a fleshed out bass response and a full expereince. Alse to help clear up some dirt in the port output.

I used a 70-90hrz high pass which seemed a great match.

Very good speakers, just not bass monsters by any means.

 

[Rja4000]

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.

That seems a very good idea !

But I think what really matters is the frequency and combined levels of the harmonics at their resulting frequencies. Not at the fundamental frequency.

That's also why I find Multitone so interesting: you see the combined result.
.

 

[Tangband]

Thank you very much for those measurements, could you maybe plot some direct comparison plots to the old R3, for example for 96 dB MD relative to fundamental and 6/12 dB horizontal bandwidth?

This review shows that different quality of the drive units makes all the difference - this speaker has apparently better motors in the uniQ driver than the old R3.

 

[thewas]

This review shows that different quality of the drive units makes all the difference - this speaker has apparently better motors in the uniQ driver than the old R3.

I never claimed the opposite, did I? By the way personally I wouldn't say "all the difference" but from a very good loudspeaker a superb one, in the end from point of audibility what counts more still like Toole says is linearity, directivity and bass, distortions come later and are mainly relevant at high SPLs.

 

[martijn86]

Looking at the measurements, I'd personally cross over a KC62 subwoofer at 50Hz with an open port (based on the compression data) or 60Hz with a closed port (based on the frequency response). Would be a terrific value for money.

 

[voodooless]

I can't stop laughing

You can laugh all you want... it's wrong

... it's a tangerine waveguide. Lemons have no place here. See, totally different thing:

 

[Vacceo]

Looking at the measurements, I'd personally cross over a KC62 subwoofer at 50Hz with an open port (based on the compression data) or 60Hz with a closed port (based on the frequency response). Would be a terrific value for money.

I'd go for a 92. Better SPL in not much larger size.

 

[Tangband]

I never claimed the opposite, did I? By the way personally I wouldn't say "all the difference" but from a very good loudspeaker a superb one, in the end from point of audibility what counts more still like Toole says is linearity, directivity and bass, distortions come later and are mainly relevant at high SPLs.

The better drivers probably explains the much higher price for this loudspeaker.
Edit: not sure of this.

 

[Tangband]

Another comparison, measurements made by Nuyes.

 

[dogmamann]

The better drivers probably explains the much higher price for this loudspeaker.
Edit: not sure of this.

From the engineering point of view, yes! From Manufacturing point of view some differences here and there, almost same amount metal, and wow nice margin. Cost difference to produce the old good driver and the new better driver would be less than 10 bucks if am not wrong!

 

[thewas]

The better drivers probably explains the much higher price for this loudspeaker.

I guess the price increase is more inflation and marketing related, since KEF engineers their own drivers and the highest costs are the R&D and not the materials.

 

[Tangband]

I guess the price increase is more inflation and marketing related, since KEF engineers their own drivers and the highest costs are the R&D and not the materials.

You may be right.
Maybe what we see is also some impact of the Meta technique, possible sandwich constructed cabinet and slightly different crossover component values ?
( shows in the better directivity )
The new Meta speaker is also bigger than the older and cheaper r3, this might possible give more deeper bass, depending on the tuning ?

 

[dogmamann]

You may be right.
Maybe what we see is also some impact of the Meta technique, possible sandwich constructed cabinet and slightly different crossover component values ?
( shows in the better directivity )
The new Meta speaker is also bigger than the older and cheaper r3, this might possible give more deeper bass, depending on the tuning ?

It isn’t bigger

 

[anphex]

The compression measurement is cool!

 

[Sokel]

Is it a little hot high or is just me seeing it wrong?
Specially at the crucial 3Khz.

 

[Vacceo]

Given its size, the R3 meta has an excellent bass response (FR).

However, to achieve this beautiful bandwidth, the KEF uses ports, which lose a bit of their power at high SPL.

I respect the design of KEF's engineers.

However, contrary to the impression you might get from the FR graph, this speaker is a bit weak on momentary peaks, such as movie explosions.

Again, this is an unnecessary nitpicking about a good enough loudspeaker.

I Guess that any user that wants a system for film/video will probably use a subwoofer and that should compensate.

Sure, not an excuse for the speaker, but it is a limitation assumed in a larger system.

 

[thewas]

Maybe what we see is also some impact of the Meta technique, possible sandwich constructed cabinet and slightly different crossover component values ?
( shows in the better directivity )

We see in the end the result of several changes, from driver motor to crossover tuning. I am sure in the upcoming white paper their individual impact will be shown with comparison measurements.