• Welcome to ASR. 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 R6 meta Measurements and Review

I have the option to purchase a used KEF Reference 2 Meta for less than half of MSRP, just not sure if its worth replacing the R6 Meta for Home Theater. Room is 13.5 x 20 x 8.5ft

MLP is about 10ft away

Selling the R6C would be tough, and Id probably get 40% of what id pay for the Ref 2M

Left and Right are Reference One Metas - what would you guys do?

Looking at the white papers, spinorama and FR look very very close

Do it, absolutely. I have this center and I tried the R2C Center before, and the advantages of Meta and Uni-Q really shine in the Reference. It will be a fantastic upgrade, especially with your mains.

Doing a bit of math, it will probably be a $2,000 upgrade, correct? Absolutely worth it in your setup.
 
Late response but I wanted to add that your observation is the same thing I ran into years ago when first getting good subs to integrate into my system.

Many people that haven't done this exercise or who don't have home theater experience will try to predict crossover points based on speaker capability (measurements). It may look great on paper to have a higher crossover point. But in practice 80 Hz is the highest you'll be able to go before getting into territory where certain voices will start to sound chesty in movies because some of those sounds are being routed to the subs through the AVR's bass management, especially if you have the subs boosted with a house curve or loudness type feature. You'll find you get the best clarity by lowering your XO to the 60-80 Hz area. In addition, you'll get a better sounding blend between the speakers and subs to the point where it is seamless. You start to lose that above 80 Hz in my experience because the rolloff of the subs is not fast enough. Many people don't realize that if you're only rolling off the subs at 12 dB / octave, there can be a significant drone which you don't want.

So while 100 Hz crossovers are possible, it's pushing the limits, and I wouldn't go there without the ability to steepen the filters.

This is based on my experience over the last 10 years with powerful, quality subs (Rythmik).
Both my AVR’s roll the sub off at 24 dB/octave. Of course, I’ve got the LPF on the subs bypassed.

What AVR’s roll off at 12 dB/octave?
 
Thanks for yet another awesome review!

This last part is really bad news... Packaging and shipping must improve immediately as this is an unacceptable defect rate.

I have seen many many reports of Quality Control Issues, Defects and Damage with many KEF Units, especially with the Metas, it's quite disappointing considering the price tag one would pay for them, but the truth is the quality of many of their Speakers, both the drivers even the enclosures internally are really bad in a lot of models. Easily overdriven as well.

Bowers & Wilkins is even MILES ahead of the game in quality build and durability compared to KEF. I love the clarity and extreme detail that come from many KEF speakers, including the Metas, but not enough to risk purchasing them in case of damage or defects.
 
Do it, absolutely. I have this center and I tried the R2C Center before, and the advantages of Meta and Uni-Q really shine in the Reference. It will be a fantastic upgrade, especially with your mains.

Doing a bit of math, it will probably be a $2,000 upgrade, correct? Absolutely worth it in your setup.
Yes about $2100CAD difference if I sell the R6CM at around 70% of MSRP.

I should probably sleep on it
 
Yes about $2100CAD difference if I sell the R6CM at around 70% of MSRP.

I should probably sleep on it

Obviously I don't know your financial situation but if you can afford it, it's so worth. The center is the most important speaker in a multi-channel setup (in fact, I had a Reference center before Reference mains (used to have the R11, now the Ref 5s).
 
Both my AVR’s roll the sub off at 24 dB/octave. Of course, I’ve got the LPF on the subs bypassed.

What AVR’s roll off at 12 dB/octave?

Thanks for the correction: it should have said 24 dB. Here is one of my old measurements.

Light blue: speakers
Dark blue: subs
Black: combined

XO is 60 Hz, but with sub levels it ends up a little higher on the chart.

At 80 Hz things sound less well-blended. 100 Hz is a no-go unless you implement a steeper filter because you'll hear some chestiness when people talk. 100 Hz XO means only 24 dB down at 200 Hz.

Rythmik FV15HP2 + Buchardt S400 + Audyssey XO.png
 
Hi all,
I’m considering a pair of these for front L/R (I don’t use a centre), to replace my LS50 meta & pair with my sealed bass cabinets.

What are people’s experiences/thoughts on using them in a vertical orientation?
 
Hi all,
I’m considering a pair of these for front L/R (I don’t use a centre), to replace my LS50 meta & pair with my sealed bass cabinets.

What are people’s experiences/thoughts on using them in a vertical orientation?
They’re great as long as you position the MT at ear level.
 
Do it, absolutely. I have this center and I tried the R2C Center before, and the advantages of Meta and Uni-Q really shine in the Reference. It will be a fantastic upgrade, especially with your mains.

Doing a bit of math, it will probably be a $2,000 upgrade, correct? Absolutely worth it in your setup.
Ok i did it lol

Ill be re-measuring the R6CMeta, swapping in the Ref 2C Meta and doing a sweep - just to see any differences. I am assuming, none at MLP haha
 
Ok i did it lol

Ill be re-measuring the R6CMeta, swapping in the Ref 2C Meta and doing a sweep - just to see any differences. I am assuming, none at MLP haha

Nice! Keep us posted! I thought this was one of the most audible speaker upgrades I have done.
 
Nice! Keep us posted! I thought this was one of the most audible speaker upgrades I have done.
Alright - spent the morning measuring, and as expected they are VERY close, especially 60hz+. At MLP however (closer to 2/3rds of length of the room), they are even closer thanks to room modes. Here are measurements where room modes dont interact as much (~2ft from the back wall)

Observations - They are almost level matched - they are within 0.5db of each other using Pink Noise.

Note: No EQ applied. Room is 13.5x20x8.5ft. Room Treated heavily. 1/6 smoothing.

Thoughts: Reference 2 Meta is *NOT* worth it over the R6CMeta, especially crossing over at 60hz.
KEF Ref2Meta vs R6C Meta FR.png
KEF Reference 2 Meta Distortion.png
KEF R6C Meta Distortion.png
 
^ How do they SOUND?
 
^ How do they SOUND?
They sound fantastic. The R6CM also sounded fantastic too. Identical even.

One more test I could do if i was feeling sadistic is to have them both stand next to each other and connected to Left and Right and have them play a song in Mono.
Then fade Left <-> Right, maybe have my wife control the fader.

If i move my head left and right constantly so that it would be harder to pin point the switch based on the slight location difference I bet it would be almost impossible to tell the difference.

When its all said and done, I'll still end up keeping the KEF Reference 2C - only because in my heart i know it "matches" more, despite what my ears/data tells me. That and i got them at a great deal.

Had I known this before hand - I would not have gone through the trouble of getting them tho over the R6C in my space.

Also - I did measurements across 5 seating areas MLP, Right / Left / Behind / Behind+Right of MLP - the measurements between the 2 are *very* close. Both Ref2M and R6CM have near identical beam width and dispersion.
 
They sound fantastic. The R6CM also sounded fantastic too. Identical even.

One more test I could do if i was feeling sadistic is to have them both stand next to each other and connected to Left and Right and have them play a song in Mono.
Then fade Left <-> Right, maybe have my wife control the fader.

If i move my head left and right constantly so that it would be harder to pin point the switch based on the slight location difference I bet it would be almost impossible to tell the difference.

When its all said and done, I'll still end up keeping the KEF Reference 2C - only because in my heart i know it "matches" more, despite what my ears/data tells me. That and i got them at a great deal.

Had I known this before hand - I would not have gone through the trouble of getting them tho over the R6C in my space.

Also - I did measurements across 5 seating areas MLP, Right / Left / Behind / Behind+Right of MLP - the measurements between the 2 are *very* close. Both Ref2M and R6CM have near identical beam width and dispersion.

I'm getting up there in age - although not that old, and I've had my fair share of upgrades that I can consider "I guess it sounds betters". Here's my 2 cents:
- Upgrade R2C to the Reference 2 Meta center: definitely an enormous upgrade in spatial sound: everything sounds more open, more depth. Hard to put it in words. Just worth it.
- Upgrade R11 to Reference 5: the bass. Bring back the R900 bass! Definitely tons of improvements in the low end (surprise!). Since I mostly run multi-channel all vocals are running through my center (see above).

Yes, the R6 is a great speaker. But in my humble opinion, the Reference 2 Meta is clearly superior. A definite upgrade. However, as with all upgrades, is it worth the money? That's definitely something to consider.

For the record: I also had a Reference 4 (non-Meta). Too big for my room, and the Meta sounds better since I don't need the additional LF.
 
One more test I could do if i was feeling sadistic is to have them both stand next to each other and connected to Left and Right and have them play a song in Mono.
Then fade Left <-> Right, maybe have my wife control the fader.
The way I did it was in foobar2000, use the DSP option to send front channel sound to the surround speakers, and connect one speaker to surround R and the other to Front R. Set a hotkey and you can just sit there and toggle.
 
Back
Top Bottom