Hi Abdo123,
I would seriously like to know the difference between R2 Meta and R6 Meta. How much difference is there. In dynamics imaging and accuracy. I guess Dynamics gonna take a huge hit. But how much difference is there.
Polar plot
“However, I have returned and exchanged them three times: twice for the R3 meta and once for the R6 meta.”Hi, again.
This time, it's KEF's R6 meta.
View attachment 299594
Impedance
View attachment 299595View attachment 299596
Frequency Response
View attachment 299597
It's pretty flat except for some of the HF above 10 kHz.
The bass extension is 70.7 Hz (-6 dB) with -14dB/oct slope.
Nearfield Measurements
View attachment 299598
Directivity
View attachment 299599View attachment 299600View attachment 299601
View attachment 299602
Overall, it's a very smooth and well-controlled Directivity.
Beamwidth
View attachment 299603View attachment 299604
Narrowest around 5 kHz.
However, this is only a marginal difference that only appears when strictly compared to Reference 2 meta.
Polar plot
View attachment 299605
Due to the chunky mass of these speakers and the horizontally placed units, you can see that most of the sound is only radiating forward.
View attachment 299606
Beautiful attenuation all around, and uniformly controlled HF directivity.
Total Harmonic Distortion
View attachment 299607View attachment 299608
Very POWERFUL and CLEAN!
EHID
View attachment 299609
(If you're curious about EHID, here's a link to learn more.)
KEF Reference 2 meta Measurements and Review.
Hello, long time no see! I'm back with a center speaker from the KEF's Reference Series. I took pictures when I was measuring it, but the pictures provided by the manufacturer are cleaner, so I'm posting it here. Impedance Along with a smooth phase response, the linearity is...
Again, this shows very clean THD measurement data.
95dB SPL@1m
View attachment 299610View attachment 299611
EHID
View attachment 299612
WHAT!!?
I'm honestly a little shocked by this one.
Prepare to be amazed.
Let me make it clear again.
View attachment 299621
I can't believe this..
95dB SPL....!
I opened the Klippel project file to double-check that the measurements were done correctly.
And soon, I had no choice but to accept the reality.
This is the insane Loudspeaker...
Multitone test
View attachment 299613View attachment 299614
Again, very clean.
Compared to the Reference 2 meta, it is slightly higher around 1 kHz.
80Hz~
View attachment 299615
Multitone test(with multiple output levels)
View attachment 299616View attachment 299617
I don't know what the hell is going on with this.
The output has increased to 96dB, but the percentage of MDs within 100-300Hz is still the same.
It hasn't increased at all.
What a beast the 6.5" woofer in the R6 meta is...
Compression test
View attachment 299618
We do see some weakness between 100 and 200Hz, but overall it's a strong performer.
View attachment 299619
This speaker was specifically tested to 102dB SPL.
Grill test
View attachment 299620
My personal opinion.
Without a doubt, one of the best speakers out there.
Due to its size and weight class, comparisons to the Reference 2 meta are inevitable, and LF and Directivity are clear wins for the Reference 2 meta.
But if you're willing to compromise with your wallet, you'll be hard pressed to find a center speaker as good as this one.
Now, let's talk about something non-performance related.
I measured both R3 meta and R6 meta.
The owners of these speakers sent them to my studio via pre-order from a distributor.
However, I have returned and exchanged them three times: twice for the R3 meta and once for the R6 meta.
This was due to poor cosmetics.
It was a combination of bad paint and dented units.
There's no denying KEF's design capabilities and that the design is great.
However, having experienced everything from the LS50 to the Reference series, the failure rate of this meta-series is a far cry from what KEF has done in the past.
I don't know if there has been a change in process, but I fervently hope that this has improved“However, I have returned and exchanged them three times: twice for the R3 meta and once for the R6 meta.”
check the response i received a few posts ago. it's not about the rounding over (the shadow flare fixes that).
On the R6 Meta polar, the widening around the 2kHz (I probably would say from 1k to 3kHz) area is mainly to do with the crossover transition from the dual woofers to the mid-range. If you have to design a speaker that fits between the bottom of the TV and the top of the TV cabinet, with some decent LF output capability, the dual woofer layout is probably the only way to go. But because of the distance between the woofers, they will start to beam inevitably quite early in the frequency range, resulting in this sort of narrow beamwidth area from 400Hz to 1000Hz crossing over to the midrange. During the design of the R2c and R6c Meta, this is one of the tricky things to deal with when balancing the system. Yes we could cross it much lower before the beaming happens, but then we will run into the mid-range power handling/distortion issue, which is very important for a home theater center channel (And Jack has mentioned what would happen if crossing higher). It took us quite a few iterations and lots of listening sessions till we settle on the current design.
. We have the shadow flare which helps with this issue a bit, and certainly we have taken this issue into account during the balancing.
Thank you for that information, at least now I won't be voiding my warranty for no gainOn the R6 Meta polar, the widening around the 2kHz (I probably would say from 1k to 3kHz) area is mainly to do with the crossover transition from the dual woofers to the mid-range. If you have to design a speaker that fits between the bottom of the TV and the top of the TV cabinet, with some decent LF output capability, the dual woofer layout is probably the only way to go. But because of the distance between the woofers, they will start to beam inevitably quite early in the frequency range, resulting in this sort of narrow beamwidth area from 400Hz to 1000Hz crossing over to the midrange. During the design of the R2c and R6c Meta, this is one of the tricky things to deal with when balancing the system. Yes we could cross it much lower before the beaming happens, but then we will run into the mid-range power handling/distortion issue, which is very important for a home theater center channel (And Jack has mentioned what would happen if crossing higher). It took us quite a few iterations and lots of listening sessions till we settle on the current design.
Roundover of the cabinet edge doesn't help with this issue, but it helps reduce diffraction. Saying that, for a round-over to be really effective one would need a radius at least bigger than 1/4 of the wavelength of the frequency at which the diffraction happens. The wider/bigger the baffle the lower the diffraction ripple starts to happen. So if you have to do that on the R6 Meta you will end up cutting away part of the woofer which is not advisable
Bring back the shape of the old KEF IQ series with the last two decades of improvement!On the R6 Meta polar, the widening around the 2kHz (I probably would say from 1k to 3kHz) area is mainly to do with the crossover transition from the dual woofers to the mid-range. If you have to design a speaker that fits between the bottom of the TV and the top of the TV cabinet, with some decent LF output capability, the dual woofer layout is probably the only way to go. But because of the distance between the woofers, they will start to beam inevitably quite early in the frequency range, resulting in this sort of narrow beamwidth area from 400Hz to 1000Hz crossing over to the midrange. During the design of the R2c and R6c Meta, this is one of the tricky things to deal with when balancing the system. Yes we could cross it much lower before the beaming happens, but then we will run into the mid-range power handling/distortion issue, which is very important for a home theater center channel (And Jack has mentioned what would happen if crossing higher). It took us quite a few iterations and lots of listening sessions till we settle on the current design.
Roundover of the cabinet edge doesn't help with this issue, but it helps reduce diffraction. Saying that, for a round-over to be really effective one would need a radius at least bigger than 1/4 of the wavelength of the frequency at which the diffraction happens. The wider/bigger the baffle the lower the diffraction ripple starts to happen. So if you have to do that on the R6 Meta you will end up cutting away part of the woofer which is not advisable
The issue is KEF will not sell a single R3 Meta
A lot of dealers sell single R3 Metas over here.
Where is over here? Not in the US
Just tap on the username and the pop-up profile will tell you where "over here" is
And I can confirm the fact that single R3s are available overhere. Please let me know a dealer that sells KEF R3 Single in the US?Just tap on the username and the pop-up profile will tell you where "over here" is
Once you enter your own location, this trick will work for yourself as well.
I think I understand what you are referring to but doubt that simply lowering the x-over frequency between bass and midrange could cure that. And even if so, it would come at a cost ...
The biggest impact of a lower crossover point would be higher load for the MF driver. Even if you invest extra money into increased excursion and power handling you'd end up with a higher moving mass. And the Uni-Q will work the better, the lower the cone excursion.
I still agree. It's why I went for this setup:
