KEF R3 Meta - Review & Measurements by Erin

[thewas]

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

Better would be the normalised to 0° plots, but I guess it would be still interesting to see how this differs to KEFs comparison, mind you KEF compared the total directivity and not just the horizontal.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

View attachment 293558View attachment 293559

I think the change in '' directivity '' is here
If you look at the 60° behavior between 1khz to 3khz~ (the new crossover range), in the R3 META case it decay less than the R3, also the range 3khz-8khz is more even, (personally i eq down that range in my R7 a bit)

 

[sweetchaos]

Here's the comparison between R3 and R3 Meta:

 

[tw 2022]

Here's the comparison between R3 and R3 Meta:
View attachment 293584
View attachment 293583

View attachment 293585
View attachment 293586
View attachment 293587
View attachment 293588

View attachment 293589

View attachment 293590
View attachment 293591


View attachment 293592


View attachment 293593

View attachment 293594

The rising treble on the OG r3 tells me why the meta might sound more neutral in comparison, imo the r3 didn't sound overly bright when i heard them, admittedly it was too short of a listen to get much fatigue....

 

[McFly]

There really isn't much in it. Due to the DI's being identical (no surprises there, the cabinet and driver dimensions are literally identical) you could almost certainly EQ the OG R3 to match the R3 meta, then I'd bet in an AB you couldn't pick the difference.

IMO, If you have the original R3's, no need to rush out and but the R3 metas. If you want the R3 Metas, the clearance pricing on R3's is probably the deal of the century right now.

Same goes for R7's etc.

Looks like the R3 Metas they just tamed a bit of the R3's brightness. I cant comment on the actual 'META' absorbtion thing, but IMO its probably a bit of squeezing the last 0.5% out of an already exceptional bookshelf speaker.

In fact, if one wasn't so schooled in speaker measurements and looked at the above graphs, subjectively they might pick the OG R3. It 'looks' smoother, did Erin use different smoothing on the data between the two?

 

[Beave]

In fact, if one wasn't so schooled in speaker measurements and looked at the above graphs, subjectively they might pick the OG R3. It 'looks' smoother, did Erin use different smoothing on the data between the two?

I was wondering the same thing. The original R3 definitely has less jaggedness in response, both on axis and off axis. Its measurements appear somewhat smoothed in comparison to the R3 Meta measurements.

 

[muad]

I was wondering the same thing. The original R3 definitely has less jaggedness in response, both on axis and off axis. Its measurements appear somewhat smoothed in comparison to the R3 Meta measurements.

I think the OG R3 was before he got the Klippel NFS.

 

[sweetchaos]

I think the OG R3 was before he got the Klippel NFS.

Wrong.

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

shows it was measured using Klippel NFS.

 

[songOVERsound]

Does anyone know the minimum listening distance for all KEF “R” series? Particularly the r11. I want to use it for nearfield roughly 4 ft or 1.2 m

I can’t find this info for the life of me

 

[muad]

Wrong.

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

Kef R3 Bookshelf Speaker Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

shows it was measured using Klippel NFS.

Weird but I stand corrected.

Just surprised, as Amirs measurement looks to be at a higher resolution than erins.

 

[Soniclife]

Weird but I stand corrected.

Just surprised, as Amirs measurement looks to be at a higher resolution than erins.

The smoothness depends on how many measurement points the NFS was set to capture, more points = jaggier. I guess Erin increased his at some point.

 

[Matias]

Disconsidering different Y axis scale, and jaggier curve of higher resolution, on the estimated room response the original R3 had a slightly boosted (horizontal) response above 1 kHz that the Meta fixed, ok.

But what surprised me was the original having slightly lower distortion than the Meta, even after all the technical advances listed on the white paper. How come??

 

[KLang1]

Same for info on 10 degrees off axis. I want measurements correlated to how I'd actually use the speaker.

As you always should with coaxials as they restrict the design possibilities of the 'waveguide'. I have yet to see one that has perfect directivity relative to 0°. E.g. even Genelec weren't able to get it perfect with their 83x1 series, only damn close. Still dips on axis at around 17kHz:

My TB W6-2313 are great - at 15° off axis, which is neat because that way they have to stand perpendicular to the back wall.

 

[Fahzz]

I have yet to see any reviewers/consumers suggesting that the R3 Meta is a substantial upgrade from the original R3. Can anyone point me to an article or post on that subject?

 

[delta76]

I have yet to see any reviewers/consumers suggesting that the R3 Meta is a substantial upgrade from the original R3. Can anyone point me to an article or post on that subject?

Kef R3 is already a great speaker. without making something significantly bigger, it's very difficult to make it significantly better.

 

[Juhazi]

Disconsidering different Y axis scale, and jaggier curve of higher resolution, on the estimated room response the original R3 had a slightly boosted (horizontal) response above 1 kHz that the Meta fixed, ok.

But what surprised me was the original having slightly lower distortion than the Meta, even after all the technical advances listed on the white paper. How come??

More bass eq. and thus lower sensitivity? (I didn't check specs)

 

[exm]

I have yet to see any reviewers/consumers suggesting that the R3 Meta is a substantial upgrade from the original R3. Can anyone point me to an article or post on that subject?

Depends what you mean with substantial.

 

[TheBatsEar]

I wish the whole series came with indigo blue.

Walnut it is then.

I don't get why it always has to be high gloss? Don't these people have oily fingers and dust?

 

[sweetchaos]

In fact, if one wasn't so schooled in speaker measurements and looked at the above graphs, subjectively they might pick the OG R3. It 'looks' smoother, did Erin use different smoothing on the data between the two?

It’s unlikely Erin added any ‘smoothing’ to his R3 measurements.

It’s more likely that Erin increased the resolution of his Klippel NFS measurements by increasing the number of sampling data points, at some point in time, from when he started measuring speakers with Klippel NFS and today. With more measurement resolution, the spin will look more jagged.

For example, Amir measured 8351B with 1000 points on his Klippel NFS, the 8361A not specified (but probably 1k?), and the 8341A with only 700 points.

That’s my understanding.

 

[Matias]

I don't get why it always has to be high gloss? Don't these people have oily fingers and dust?

It looks impressive in photos and in the store. They find out later when they take home, but then the sale is already done.