KEF Reference 1 META Bookshelf Speaker Review by Erin's Audio Corner

[cavedriver]

Measurements used from Erin's Audio Corner for KEF reference 1 meta.

I will make an assumption that KEF Ref 3 meta has a similar horizontal frequency response.

The response will slope even worse the further you are sitting from the speakers and if the room is highly absorptive.

As you can see the more you are sitting away from the on-axis response (speakers pointing straight ahead towards your ears), the more upper midrange and high frequency drop off. Meaning, that if you have speakers pointed straight ahead, FR will be slopped down and you will hear fewer upper frequencies.
This will make the speaker sound mellow, dull, and more relaxed (pick your word to describe the lack of upper frequencies).
Now, couple this with the aging ears (mind included and nothing personal), and you will not get the best FR, stereo image, or focus in the middle (phantom center speaker).
What you will get (and no argument from me) will be a bigger and less focused "sound stage" and a more relaxed presentation.
This will be a personal choice but if one is striving for a more accurate FR response, stereo image focus and etc, then speakers' tweeters should be crossed slightly behind one's ears ( 1-2 feet behind the MLP).

I don't think I disagree but if you look at the graph you linked, the 10 and 20 degree data for the KEF's is almost the same as on-axis, this is the advantage of their wide dispersion. I just re-measured my listening setup and my speakers are about 7.5 feet apart and the listener is 11 feet away for an off-axis angle of 18 degrees. This would suggest that toe-ing them in would be unnecessary. Granted I can't say right now what the problem would be with toe-ing them in right now that would encourage not doing it. People say that it puts people outside the stereo image but I've never bothered to confirm it for myself. It is interesting though when I consider measurements of B&W's where people frequently cite them for having too much high frequency output. Perhaps they also have poor off-axis response and the designers expect their listeners to not toe them in that much. Regardless this is previously hashed out terrain, pretty sure there are more informed people that could pick this apart but I can add that this reviewer isn't the only person suggesting that speaker X does not need to be, or should not be toed in.

 

[bo_knows]

I don't think I disagree but if you look at the graph you linked, the 10 and 20 degree data for the KEF's is almost the same as on-axis, this is the advantage of their wide dispersion. I just re-measured my listening setup and my speakers are about 7.5 feet apart and the listener is 11 feet away for an off-axis angle of 18 degrees. This would suggest that toe-ing them in would be unnecessary. Granted I can't say right now what the problem would be with toe-ing them in right now that would encourage not doing it. People say that it puts people outside the stereo image but I've never bothered to confirm it for myself. It is interesting though when I consider measurements of B&W's where people frequently cite them for having too much high frequency output. Perhaps they also have poor off-axis response and the designers expect their listeners to not toe them in that much. Regardless this is previously hashed out terrain, pretty sure there are more informed people that could pick this apart but I can add that this reviewer isn't the only person suggesting that speaker X does not need to be, or should not be toed in.

I'm not a mathematician but I would think the angle will be larger than 10 to 20 degrees if the speaker is pointing straight out in the room.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I enjoyed Steve's subjective review.

I will do what I think it's best for me in my room by using objective data and measurements.

KEF has a decent horizontal dispersion but is not as wide as some other speakers.

 

[aarons915]

I'm not a mathematician but I would think the angle will be larger than 10 to 20 degrees if the speaker is pointing straight out in the room.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I enjoyed Steve's subjective review.

I will do what I think it's best for me in my room by using objective data and measurements.

KEF has a decent horizontal dispersion but is not as wide as some other speakers.



View attachment 214951

10 to 20 degrees is perfect to point them straight ahead and still have a strong on-axis response. If they were as strong out to 60-90 degrees then they would sound way too bright in room due to having a flattish in-room response.

 

[bo_knows]

10 to 20 degrees is perfect to point them straight ahead and still have a strong on-axis response. If they were as strong out to 60-90 degrees then they would sound way too bright in room due to having a flattish in-room response.

Blue line is what works for me.

Peace, out.

 

[jonfitch]

I should start by saying that I enjoyed Steve's review but a few things got me questioning some of his recommendations.

1) Speakers to be positioned with no toe-in meaning firing straight ahead.

Why? How did he get to this conclusion? Did this recommendation come from KEF?

2) Speakers need to be placed in the large room and recommend smaller Ref 1 for small to medium-size rooms.
Again why?

No scientific proof was provided, only his long-time audiophile experience.

I will need a better explanation before I take his recommendations as gospel.

Needless to say, I disagree with both of those...

Toe-in was a strategy designed to deal with speakers that have non-uniform dispersion to get as much of the on-axis response as possible. This wasn't a problem until the wide baffle 3-way designs fell out of favor in the late 70s for smaller and more decor friendly designs in the 80s onwards with narrower baffles and simplified 2.5 way designs with less crossover complexity. A well designed speaker really shouldn't need any toe in at all.

 

[StyxRogan]

Kef Reference 1 Meta in the house... only took 6 months and 1 day

 

[Opal]

Kef Reference 1 Meta in the house... only took 6 months and 1 dayView attachment 239992

Do share some photos and impression!

 

[StyxRogan]

Awesome surround sound speakers

 

[Descartes]

Awesome surround sound speakers
View attachment 250991

Are these blade ones meta in the front?
Can I come over for a quick demo?

 

[cavedriver]

Awesome surround sound speakers

$9k for surrounds, haha, not that I doubt that they sound great, but what movie actually puts enough volume and content through the side and rear channels to challenge something even in the $1-2k range? And with no disrespect I do mean that as a serious question. My only issue with 1-2k speakers is that there are still so many that I find flaws with in primary listening and so even if I couldn't hear it during a movie I would still have that gnawing at the back of my mind that there's something less then "right" with my system. If anything, it seems one of the biggest goals with those surround positions would be picking something that "disappears". As point sources I suppose the ref 1 meta's would do well for that, but wouldn't any speaker with a fairly wide dispersion pattern do just as well?

 

[airgas1998]

kr1m's for surround duty....sure why not...

 

[pjn]

From the front, the Ref cones have about double the number of "ribs" compared to the R cones.

From the back, as jhaider wrote, the magnets are completely different.

And loads more ribs than LS50 meta et al.

 

[Opal]

Awesome surround sound speakers
View attachment 250991

Lol. Totally not what we all expected you to use these for

 

[StyxRogan]

Are these blade ones meta in the front?
Can I come over for a quick demo?

best buy is your friend

 

[Descartes]

best buy is your friend

Nice, I would never buy any speakers at Best Buy

 

[Steve Dallas]

My endgame speakers being used as surround noisemakers... I'll just sit over here in the corner and be sad about my 1st world problems.

 

[harkpabst]

And loads more ribs than LS50 meta et al.

LS50 Meta mid/bass drivers have exactly the same number of ribs as R3 midrange drivers: 9 in total. So it's exactly twice the number of ribs in both cases.

 

[pjn]

LS50 Meta mid/bass drivers have exactly the same number of ribs as R3 midrange drivers: 9 in total. So it's exactly twice the number of ribs in both cases.

Agreed - but the Reference Meta drivers seem to have 2x the number - 18 in total. As do the Blade and Muon
The other variation is the surrounding baffle/waveguide - some models (LS50, Q) have ribs on this, others don't (Reference, R series, Blade, Muon)

 

[harkpabst]

Agreed - but the Reference Meta drivers seem to have 2x the number - 18 in total.

Yes, and I explicitly agreed to that, didn't I?

As do the Blade and Muon
The other variation is the surrounding baffle/waveguide - some models (LS50, Q) have ribs on this, others don't (Reference, R series, Blade, Muon)

And the simple reason is that these are all completely different drivers, dedicated to a specific purpose. The only exception are Blade Meta and Reference Meta where the Uni-Q drivers are now identical, as confirmed by @jackocleebrown .

No matter how often badly informed forum members keep speculating about all Uni-Q drivers being "the same", they simply are not. Different magnets, different voice coils, different suspensions, different surrounds, different sizes (LS60, LSX II) different most everything, probably even different cone materials. They are used for different purposes (mid-woofer vs midrange) in different acoustical environments (shadow flare vs. no shadow flare) in different price points.

Counting the number of ribs is a sure proof that two drivers are not identical. But even if the number of ribs is the same it doesn't mean the actual drivers are.

The Uni-Q "generation" alone does not qualify as the only distinguishing factor. It just refers to a point in time when a certain key technology has been introduced.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Yes, and I explicitly agreed to that, didn't I?


And the simple reason is that these are all completely different drivers, dedicated to a specific purpose. The only exception are Blade Meta and Reference Meta where the Uni-Q drivers are now identical, as confirmed by @jackocleebrown .

No matter how often badly informed forum members keep speculating about all Uni-Q drivers being "the same", they simply are not. Different magnets, different voice coils, different suspensions, different surrounds, different sizes (LS60, LSX II) different most everything, probably even different cone materials. They are used for different purposes (mid-woofer vs midrange) in different acoustical environments (shadow flare vs. no shadow flare) in different price points.

Counting the number of ribs is a sure proof that two drivers are not identical. But even if the number of ribs is the same it doesn't mean the actual drivers are.

The Uni-Q "generation" alone does not qualify as the only distinguishing factor. It just refers to a point in time when a certain key technology has been introduced.

I just know the drivers are ribbed for our pleasure.