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

[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.

 

[harkpabst]

I just know the drivers are ribbed for our pleasure.

Wait ... does that mean all the pleasure I get from my Q100 is ... just fake?

No ribs at all!

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

I used to enjoy the detailed treble energy sound, now I enjoy the Buchardt 400 mk 1 darker, cleaner and MORE ACCURATE sound. The false treble emphasis is a turn off to me.

 

[harkpabst]

I used to enjoy the detailed treble energy sound, now I enjoy the Buchardt 400 mk 1 darker, cleaner and MORE ACCURATE sound. The false treble emphasis is a turn off to me.

So you sold your KEF Reference 1 META in favour of the Buchardt 400? That's interesting.

 

[don'ttrustauthority]

So you sold your KEF Reference 1 META in favour of the Buchardt 400? That's interesting.

No, I kept the Buchardt because I knocked it off the stand and lost return privileges.

 

[tw 2022]

No, I kept the Buchardt because I knocked it off the stand and lost return privileges.

Ouch...

 

[harkpabst]

No, I kept the Buchardt because I knocked it off the stand and lost return privileges.

Bummer. Still not sure how your post relates to this thread's topic.

 

[Opal]

I used to enjoy the detailed treble energy sound, now I enjoy the Buchardt 400 mk 1 darker, cleaner and MORE ACCURATE sound. The false treble emphasis is a turn off to me.

You mentioned more accurate.. The Buchardt 400 mk 1's measurement is better?

 

[sifi36]

You mentioned more accurate.. The Buchardt 400 mk 1's measurement is better?

Erin has measured both and the KEF is flatter (in fact it’s about as good as passive can get) than the Buchardt and extends lower too. Perhaps @don'ttrustauthority has a subjective preference for a more mid-range emphasis over a more neutral sound?

Spinorama comparison

 

[SME12A]

BEK HIFI in Allentown, PA will have month old piano black/silver, KEF Reference 3 Meta at really good price soon. I treaded them in and when you call/email Erik - he will get you a good deal.

http://www.bekhifi.com/

 

[Lbstyling]

Is this diffraction?

View attachment 204830

The most interesting question with the Ref 1 Meta is how good it is compared to the R3. How close can you get with a simple EQ with the R3?
Here's a comparison from @pierre 's excellent site after EQ to make it easier to compare;

View attachment 204831


Tonality wise it looks like you'll get much of the same. Distortion wise? Looks smoother on the Ref 1, but the difference may not be all that much.


View attachment 204833View attachment 204834

The difference is the r3 is a 80 deg (-6db) wide pattern speaker and the ref1 is 100 deg.

 

[Descartes]

The difference is the r3 is a 80 deg (-6db) wide pattern speaker and the ref1 is 100 deg.

So does that mean that you get better coverage if your are not sitting on axis?

 

[Lbstyling]

So does that mean that you get better coverage if your are not sitting on axis?

Yes. But there is more to it than that. Wider pattern is preferred by the majority according to Harman Research. But not by everyone.

Subjectively it sounds more 'live'. This opinion will not be supported by everyone.

Ribbon tweeters would be an example of a common 'wide pattern' driver. If you hear one at a show or similar it can sound like the treble is 'enhanced' in some way. It's often not, it just ribbons can be as much as 100deg wide pattern vs 60 deg (ish) for a typical dome tweeter.

Basically, putting more energy into the sidewalls/room vs on axis gives you proportionally higher 'room sound' mixed with the fundamental.

If you want to imagine it: hearing a 'live recording' vs studio recording of a track is a much stronger, but similar effect.

 

[soerenssen]

What would be the ideal center speaker for LCR? According to the salesman I spoke to in a local hifi shop, it has to be either the Ref 2 or 4 Meta, but it'd be a stretch financially and stereo listening has priority. Would something like the R6 Meta be a good match too?

 

[sweetchaos]

What would be the ideal center speaker for LCR? According to the salesman I spoke to in a local hifi shop, it has to be either the Ref 2 or 4 Meta, but it'd be a stretch financially and stereo listening has priority. Would something like the R6 Meta be a good match too?

Take a look at my post:

Gif comparison between Kef Reference 2 Meta and R6 Meta:

KEF R6 meta Measurements and Review

Hi, again. This time, it's KEF's R6 meta. Impedance Frequency Response 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 Directivity Overall, it's a very smooth and well-controlled...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[soerenssen]

Take a look at my post:

Gif comparison between Kef Reference 2 Meta and R6 Meta:

KEF R6 meta Measurements and Review

Hi, again. This time, it's KEF's R6 meta. Impedance Frequency Response 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 Directivity Overall, it's a very smooth and well-controlled...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Yeah they are quite close on paper, but I was not sure that in practice it translates to quasi 100% compatibility with the Reference series. So the R6 should be fine too, right?

 

[direwolf08]

Yes. But there is more to it than that. Wider pattern is preferred by the majority according to Harman Research. But not by everyone.

Subjectively it sounds more 'live'. This opinion will not be supported by everyone.

Ribbon tweeters would be an example of a common 'wide pattern' driver. If you hear one at a show or similar it can sound like the treble is 'enhanced' in some way. It's often not, it just ribbons can be as much as 100deg wide pattern vs 60 deg (ish) for a typical dome tweeter.

Basically, putting more energy into the sidewalls/room vs on axis gives you proportionally higher 'room sound' mixed with the fundamental.

If you want to imagine it: hearing a 'live recording' vs studio recording of a track is a much stronger, but similar effect.

So is that to say I will get a more “3D soundstage” (to borrow Erin’s term from his review) with something like a Philharmonic BMR vs an R3? Or exactly the opposite? My use case would be a ~9ft (2.7m) speaker to ear listening distance in a decently treated room.

 

[muad]

So is that to say I will get a more “3D soundstage” (to borrow Erin’s term from his review) with something like a Philharmonic BMR vs an R3? Or exactly the opposite? My use case would be a ~9ft (2.7m) speaker to ear listening distance in a decently treated room.

I've had both. The BMRs gave me a more "they're in the room" kind of sound, that is more enveloping, but the upper mid/ treble can be a little much with some recordings. The ultra wide directivity is a double edged sword for sure, I found a tonal balance that leaned towards the thin side. I found them difficult to listen to with old rolling stones and zeppelin etc. Their wide directivity was also nice as the center image was very stable for me no matter where I stood. Very cool effect!

The R3s in a reflective room work well imo, and help the speaker fill the space more. I wouldn't use them in a dead heavily treated room, unless I wanted that headphone effect. The sound is very 3D (depth) and you can hear the recording more and less of the room (less detail is lost in the mix). They're less enveloping.

 

[tw 2022]

I've had both. The BMRs gave me a more "they're in the room" kind of sound, that is more enveloping, but the upper mid/ treble can be a little much with some recordings. The ultra wide directivity is a double edged sword for sure, I found a tonal balance that leaned towards the thin side. I found them difficult to listen to with old rolling stones and zeppelin etc. Their wide directivity was also nice as the center image was very stable for me no matter where I stood. Very cool effect!

The R3s in a reflective room work well imo, and help the speaker fill the space more. I wouldn't use them in a dead heavily treated room, unless I wanted that headphone effect. The sound is very 3D (depth) and you can hear the recording more and less of the room (less detail is lost in the mix). They're less enveloping.

Yeah, those bmr's have an " all over the room" sweet spot, i like that effect, i think they have a very clean sound too... I liked the r3 ( non meta) too, it was a more narrower presentation but still fairly impressive, neither came off bright to me , but i spent a lot more time with the bmr...

 

[Lbstyling]

So is that to say I will get a more “3D soundstage” (to borrow Erin’s term from his review) with something like a Philharmonic BMR vs an R3? Or exactly the opposite? My use case would be a ~9ft (2.7m) speaker to ear listening distance in a decently treated room.

You cannot give absolute answers to this, but Toole's research showed that as long as the off axis response was even with on axis (mainly in the horizontal axis) a wide pattern control is preferred by most people (that includes trained listeners)

Contrary to the belief of many, if the off axis specra matches on axis, sound is preferred with many reflection points/shapes around the speakers. I can't remember if he came to a conclusion over what happens in the '3ft' reflection window (IE where the delay between the fundamental and reflection is close enough in time to be heard as one sound)

Muad:
When using a wide pattern speaker with walls/surfaces close by, consider adding further tilt to the treble response as the brain hears a somewhat 'averaged' SPL with close surfaces. This is why many of the revel flagship speakers have treble balance controls.

Interestingly, I find the R3s good, but the METAs much better.