KEF R3 Meta - Review & Measurements by Erin

[thewas]

What could be the reason for the R3 meta and R5 meta having such a difference in the mid to high frequency? I thought both uses the same uni-q driver?

Even KEFs measurements show some differences there, different tuning and crossover as it can seen also from the different crossover frequencies.

 

[Soniclife]

Different cabinet width? Is the shadow flare different?

 

[Opal]

Thanks for the possible explanations. Am quite shocked to see the difference between them is not subtle. The R3 Meta looks like a overall better speaker to me nt sure if i am right.

 

[dmilller]

Per the directions that came with the R3 and measured distance to the wall I have the hollow tube foam plug in my speakers. Planning on using DIRAC to help control lower frequencies/room modes. What are people's thoughts about using DIRAC with or without the plugs? Better to let DIRAC do everything, better to follow R3 directions and use the tube foam plug, or else completely plug the speaker, etc.? Thanks.

With no subwoofers? I think it depends if the speakers need to be against the wall.

 

[dmilller]

Could somebody compare R5 Meta measurements to Focal Aria 936? Would it be an upgrade or difference is to small to even consider replacing Arias?

Personally I would put money towards a new Denon/Marantz with Dirac. The trouble with reviews of more expensive speakers is that most people don't run them "vanilla". We often use subs and Audyssey or Dirac. Processing makes a vastly larger difference than what exists between quality speakers at similar price points.

The focal are lovely speakers as are the KEFs. I think you switch for curiosity or aesthetics. One reason I was willing to pay for the R3 Metas is the look. The Walnut goes nicely in my room. I wish the $700 stands for the R3 did something useful.

 

[Dovydas]

Personally I would put money towards a new Denon/Marantz with Dirac. The trouble with reviews of more expensive speakers is that most people don't run them "vanilla". We often use subs and Audyssey or Dirac. Processing makes a vastly larger difference than what exists between quality speakers at similar price points.

The focal are lovely speakers as are the KEFs. I think you switch for curiosity or aesthetics. One reason I was willing to pay for the R3 Metas is the look. The Walnut goes nicely in my room. I wish the $700 stands for the R3 did something useful.

That pretty much answers my question. And yes, I use it with 2 subs and Multeq-X. It looks like next obvious step would be Perlisten R series, haha. Unfortunately it's quite expensive here in Europe.

 

[SharinganUser]

I bought a pair of KEF R3 Metas in early March and couldn't be happier with their performance in my system. I have no objective measurements, nor do I have any double blind AxB test results, just my humble subjective opinion.

What you driving them with?

 

[SharinganUser]

View attachment 293554View attachment 293556View attachment 293558View attachment 293559

Text review is up, BTW:

KEF R3 Meta Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Meta

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

Is it me or is old R3 better??

 

[HarmonicTHD]

Is it me or is old R3 better??

Better how?

 

[VintageFlanker]

Is it me or is old R3 better??

It's you.

 

[Vacceo]

That pretty much answers my question. And yes, I use it with 2 subs and Multeq-X. It looks like next obvious step would be Perlisten R series, haha. Unfortunately it's quite expensive here in Europe.

Looking at measurements, you would get a far narrower vertical spread, a very similar horizontal spread, and in the case of bookshelves, quite a lower extension.

Perhaps you may not have an improvement, just a very different and still equally competent speaker.

 

[Chromatischism]

Is it me or is old R3 better??

The old R3 was only good with EQ to tame the upper mids. Was way overhyped in stock form as most people ran them. The new one should certainly be better without EQ.

 

[bodhi]

The old R3 was only good with EQ to tame the upper mids. Was way overhyped in stock form as most people ran them. The new one should certainly be better without EQ.

"Only good with EQ" Sure, buddy. It just happens to still be one of the best bookshelves objectively and managed to gain almost universal praise amongst reviewers.

You could add "...for my preferences" although from the rest of the message it seems you think this opinion should be considered factual.

 

[Dovydas]

Looking at measurements, you would get a far narrower vertical spread, a very similar horizontal spread, and in the case of bookshelves, quite a lower extension.

Perhaps you may not have an improvement, just a very different and still equally competent speaker.

Makes sense. The only reason I'm looking at other speakers is centre channel. Looks like R6 Meta matches R7 Meta better than Focal's Aria 936 matches 900 CC.

 

[Chromatischism]

"Only good with EQ" Sure, buddy. It just happens to still be one of the best bookshelves objectively and managed to gain almost universal praise amongst reviewers.

You could add "...for my preferences" although from the rest of the message it seems you think this opinion should be considered factual.

Sure, it would be my preference to not have a rise in the upper mids making the speaker fatiguing after a while. Don't pretend like this is the first time you've heard that. Erin mentioned the lifted treble on-axis in his review.

Maybe my choice of words was too harsh, but I have a strong preference for non-fatiguing sound.

 

[Vacceo]

Makes sense. The only reason I'm looking at other speakers is centre channel. Looks like R6 Meta matches R7 Meta better than Focal's Aria 936 matches 900 CC.

On woofers and uniq terms, the R6 is a cut-off and sealed R7.

To be honest, once you apply EQ, the differences may be even smaller between KEF and Perlisten. The advantage I see on Perlisten is the SPL, but perhaps you don't need the extra spl...

On subwoofers, Perlisten is way ahead both in price and performance. Time for KEF to release a 10-12 unicore sub with XLR connection...

 

[thegeton]

What you driving them with?

A Buckeye Purifi 1ET400A 2 channel amp.

 

[Alexx]

An information.

I have a pair of R3s (no destination) I just changed amplifier because in the high range they gave the impression of being too forward (S-C-Z sibilants).

Before I had a Nad 399 now I got a Rega Elicit MK5 and I find it "warmer" in the medium-high range.

I was thinking of getting the R3 Meta (found on promo for 1800 euros) with the hope of having a slightly softer high range of the tweeter (probably due to the meta material inserted in the tweeter exact?) Do you think it might be worth it?

Otherwise I will have to evaluate another 3-way bookshelf speaker but I don't think this is the correct section for other speakers.
Thank you in advance.

 

[bodhi]

An information.

I have a pair of R3s (no destination) I just changed amplifier because in the high range they gave the impression of being too forward (S-C-Z sibilants).

Before I had a Nad 399 now I got a Rega Elicit MK5 and I find it "warmer" in the medium-high range.

It probably isn't, amps should not change the sound of a speaker.

I was thinking of getting the R3 Meta (found on promo for 1800 euros) with the hope of having a slightly softer high range of the tweeter (probably due to the meta material inserted in the tweeter exact?) Do you think it might be worth it?

Otherwise I will have to evaluate another 3-way bookshelf speaker but I don't think this is the correct section for other speakers.
Thank you in advance.

The R3 Meta is one of the best bookshelves available, but not that huge improvement over R3, which could be EQ:d to sound like the Meta version. I doubt anything in the price range would be a huge improvement.

What would be most worth it is getting a measurement mic and getting the ability to EQ your speakers.

 

[Penelinfi]

I'd say that while some amplifiers can sound ever so slightly different (if not tube amps), but they won't fix a flaw in a speaker generally.