KEF R3 Meta - Review & Measurements by Erin

[Descartes]

@Descartes - I think those are different speakers.

In fairness, what I posted was from @sweetchaos 's list & the numbers for the Sierra-LX are from Ascend's vendor-provided measurements.

There is a small thread on the LX here & would obviously love to get an independent measurement:

Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX Review

The LX's arrived yesterday and I have listened to them for a good 4 hours. Definitely not enough time to really bring out what these are capable of, but nonetheless, I am impressed. They are large for bookshelf speakers, each one is about 20 pounds and hasabout 14.25 inches of height. They...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I will stick with KEF R3 Meta

 

[dogmamann]

Sarcasm?

View attachment 323285

Particularly looking at the Sierra-LX.

Both the top 2 are available in US not elsewhere. Won’t consider them universal speakers

 

[jhaider]

this guy is claiming another bookshelf is better than r3 meta without any proof!

James Larson has measured a couple of that company’s speakers for Audioholics. You can look them up to see the performance they target.

 

[dogmamann]

James Larson has measured a couple of that company’s speakers for Audioholics. You can look them up to see the performance they target.

With Klippel? Then it’s interesting

 

[jhaider]

With Klippel? Then it’s interesting

No, he measures outside.

The Klippel NFS is a great tool, but there are other ways to acquire useful data as well.

 

[ExPerfectionist]

Ascend Sierra Luna Duo Center/Main Speaker Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Ascend Sierra Luna Duo which the company touts for both center and main application. It is kindly sent by a member for testing. It costs US $798 each. The Duo as the name indicates, is the doubled up Sierra Luna speaker which I just reviewed...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I think not!

Ascend Sierra-LX and Sierra Luna Duo Center channel are completely different speakers.

 

[OldGreg]

Playing with crossover settings with my SVS 3000 Micro - where’s everybody finding the sweet spot to be with their R3 Metas? Seems to be somewhere between 80-100hz in my room but haven’t had a chance to measure yet.

 

[Descartes]

Playing with crossover settings with my SVS 3000 Micro - where’s everybody finding the sweet spot to be with their R3 Metas? Seems to be somewhere between 80-100hz in my room but haven’t had a chance to measure yet.

90 Hz

 

[Ciobi69]

Playing with crossover settings with my SVS 3000 Micro - where’s everybody finding the sweet spot to be with their R3 Metas? Seems to be somewhere between 80-100hz in my room but haven’t had a chance to measure yet.

Measure it first

 

[rogu3]

90 Hz

Ditto for my 2x SVS 3000 micro's.

 

[thegeton]

Darko? Without proof? Can't be!

Next time, could you please post a warning several posts before you post this? Almost snorted my whiskey.

 

[thegeton]

Ditto for my 2x SVS 3000 micro's.

78Hz for my single SVS SB-1000 Pro.

 

[Dirk Diggler 9]

KEF R3 Meta Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Meta

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

View attachment 293523View attachment 293524View attachment 293525

 

[Dirk Diggler 9]

KEF R3 Meta Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Meta

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

View attachment 293523View attachment 293524View attachment 293525

Is the tweeter/midrange driver in a separate compartment from the woofer??

 

[Wolf]

I sure hope so.

 

[Descartes]

Does anyone have a R3 Meta and a Reference One Meta section cut to see what they look like inside?

 

[exm]

Does anyone have a R3 Meta and a Reference One Meta section cut to see what they look like inside?

Not the r3s/r11s, but here are the 11s/Ref5s. I assume you can picture what the smaller versions will look like.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

No, he measures outside.

The Klippel NFS is a great tool, but there are other ways to acquire useful data as well.

Ditto that. James measured the $25,000 MonAcoustic SuperMon Isobaric, and it didn't do very well. See horizontal waterfall plot below. James doesn't provide distortion data, and he has to splice a ground plane measurement to the quasi-anechoic portion to predict bass response. But with those exceptions, I find his measurements as informative as the Klippel results, speaking both as a designer and a consumer.

 

[jiji]

After a month of listening to R3 metas, here is what i experienced
1. Long listening fatigue is gone , compared to my LS50(non meta)
2. No need of sub in my room(I have it though for movies) now for 2 channel music listening, as R3 bass response is more than decent.
3. Both R3 meta & LS50 Non meta sound signatures are bit different. For example i miss the LS50 holographic presentation with highs are predominant, whereas in R3 metas the instruments are good with a good layered presentation. In my world they are not replacement for each other, but with different presentation.
4. R3 meta high frequency presentation for me it seems to be bit may be more controlled?(may be bit more highs i expected)
5. Mids and vocals are really great and phantom center image is good compared to LS 50.
6. I find R3 metas to be more neutral(some times bit boring), if the content is different, but LS50 non meta was fun with almost all contents(may be its me).
7. Now that i feel the new R3 metas ran more than 100 hours, i believe it might have opened up.
8.I tried toeing out a bit as suggested in general, but it doesn't work for me, as I lost more HF by toeing out. My case straight placement (0 deg) works better. May be its due to the fact I'm having basic first reflection room correction done.
9. Overall I'm happy , but would like to do more comparisons in December.
10. Now my LS 50 serves as a surround speakers and man what a difference it makes in the surround environment. Simply enhanced my movie viewing experience.

 

[Descartes]

After a month of listening to R3 metas, here is what i experienced
1. Long listening fatigue is gone , compared to my LS50(non meta)
2. No need of sub in my room(I have it though for movies) now for 2 channel music listening, as R3 bass response is more than decent.
3. Both R3 meta & LS50 Non meta sound signatures are bit different. For example i miss the LS50 holographic presentation with highs are predominant, whereas in R3 metas the instruments are good with a good layered presentation. In my world they are not replacement for each other, but with different presentation.
4. R3 meta high frequency presentation for me it seems to be bit may be more controlled?(may be bit more highs i expected)
5. Mids and vocals are really great and phantom center image is good compared to LS 50.
6. I find R3 metas to be more neutral(some times bit boring), if the content is different, but LS50 non meta was fun with almost all contents(may be its me).
7. Now that i feel the new R3 metas ran more than 100 hours, i believe it might have opened up.
8.I tried toeing out a bit as suggested in general, but it doesn't work for me, as I lost more HF by toeing out. My case straight placement (0 deg) works better. May be its due to the fact I'm having basic first reflection room correction done.
9. Overall I'm happy , but would like to do more comparisons in December.
10. Now my LS 50 serves as a surround speakers and man what a difference it makes in the surround environment. Simply enhanced my movie viewing experience.

Thank you for your subjective opinion! I think it that “Now that i feel the new R3 metas ran more than 100 hours, i believe it might have opened up.” is pure speculation and a figment of your imagination