what i see about the new reference metas, is they improved the tweeter directivity, is wider so now it match better the mid range... my KEF R7 sounded small in the top end, spatial qualitys are affected by thatSoooo yeah I went and did it. Okay, not actually already buying those speakers but I gave a listen to all my KEF candidates.
![]()
A big bummer for me was that their listening room didn't have meaningful acoustic treatment. They didn't even care about bass modes and told me that they wanted to aim for a regular, basic living room experience most people have. I kind of agree, but I'd rather think that people who buy speakers for +10k would at least use bass correction and a few more absorbers/diffusers. It wasn't bad but these speakers were heavily throttled by the room I could tell.
We started off with listening to the Blades 2 Meta. As for the sound I can't find a better word for it than "weird". It was as if there was no on axis sound at all, it was like there was no speaker at all. It was just free floating music in the room. Did I like it? I am not sure, since as mentioned above the room was pretty random and what I heard was not really enough to make me buy 26.000 € speakers without the right to return them. Was this sound good? Oh yes, it was stellar, but I wasn't in awe as you would want to be on this price range.
Then we switched to the Reference 3 Meta. I liked those way more. I can't really explain why - maybe more "direct" sound? They sounded just more fun, had nicer bass (maybe less distortion due to the higher weight: 33 Kg vs 51 Kg?) and their Uni-Q driver was placed on average couch-sitting-ear height. The resolution was absolutely stellar as far as I could tell in that room.
Finally after my request the store owner brought a pair of R7 Meta. Compared to the R-Series these are considered already pretty large but still notably smaller than the Reference 3. I didn't expect such a downgrade when pressing play on the prior listening test songs but yeah, it was a downgrade. It wasn't bad, those are actually really solid speakers having all the KEF qualities, but the bass, sweet spot and resolution couldn't be compared to the Reference series.
If I had to choose right now I'd take the Reference 3. BUT I still have to test the Genelec 8361 for completeness.
Thing is, right after coming home I ran the listening test songs on my NuVero 170. Firstly, the bass is unmatched even by the Blade and Reference and secondly I remembered that the Uni-Q driver had this 99 % absorption thingy for the treble, so I just whipped out some leftover acoustic wool and put it behind all my BMR and Tweeters (there was some already but you could place 1-2 sheets more behind them if you wanted too, dunno why Nubert didn't fill this up. I think it's kind of an improvement in resolution but could be full placebo. Anyway, the longer I sit here and listen (currently as I write this post) I see less and less reason to switch to KEF right now. I'd rather save the money and get 2 nifty subwoofers instead.
But there is a moderate chance that I wake up tomorrow and yell "BLADES". This is what hifi is all about.
I will report back after listening to the Genelecs. And to make it clear: if I had had the money back then and the KEFs and AudioScienceReview would have been available from my start I would have gone straight to the Reference 3.
Edit: One thing that stood out: the owner showed me "Roger Walters - The Ballad of Bill Hubbart" where at the beginning there is a dog barking and a phone call that, when using the right setup and ideal speaker alignment, should simulate "rear sound" which worked extremely good on the KEF. I couldn't get this effect to work on my NuVero 170 yet ...
How did all the Kef's sound in comparison to your Nubert setup?Soooo yeah I went and did it. Okay, not actually already buying those speakers but I gave a listen to all my KEF candidates.
![]()
A big bummer for me was that their listening room didn't have meaningful acoustic treatment. They didn't even care about bass modes and told me that they wanted to aim for a regular, basic living room experience most people have. I kind of agree, but I'd rather think that people who buy speakers for +10k would at least use bass correction and a few more absorbers/diffusers. It wasn't bad but these speakers were heavily throttled by the room I could tell.
We started off with listening to the Blades 2 Meta. As for the sound I can't find a better word for it than "weird". It was as if there was no on axis sound at all, it was like there was no speaker at all. It was just free floating music in the room. Did I like it? I am not sure, since as mentioned above the room was pretty random and what I heard was not really enough to make me buy 26.000 € speakers without the right to return them. Was this sound good? Oh yes, it was stellar, but I wasn't in awe as you would want to be on this price range.
Then we switched to the Reference 3 Meta. I liked those way more. I can't really explain why - maybe more "direct" sound? They sounded just more fun, had nicer bass (maybe less distortion due to the higher weight: 33 Kg vs 51 Kg?) and their Uni-Q driver was placed on average couch-sitting-ear height. The resolution was absolutely stellar as far as I could tell in that room.
Finally after my request the store owner brought a pair of R7 Meta. Compared to the R-Series these are considered already pretty large but still notably smaller than the Reference 3. I didn't expect such a downgrade when pressing play on the prior listening test songs but yeah, it was a downgrade. It wasn't bad, those are actually really solid speakers having all the KEF qualities, but the bass, sweet spot and resolution couldn't be compared to the Reference series.
If I had to choose right now I'd take the Reference 3. BUT I still have to test the Genelec 8361 for completeness.
Thing is, right after coming home I ran the listening test songs on my NuVero 170. Firstly, the bass is unmatched even by the Blade and Reference and secondly I remembered that the Uni-Q driver had this 99 % absorption thingy for the treble, so I just whipped out some leftover acoustic wool and put it behind all my BMR and Tweeters (there was some already but you could place 1-2 sheets more behind them if you wanted too, dunno why Nubert didn't fill this up. I think it's kind of an improvement in resolution but could be full placebo. Anyway, the longer I sit here and listen (currently as I write this post) I see less and less reason to switch to KEF right now. I'd rather save the money and get 2 nifty subwoofers instead.
But there is a moderate chance that I wake up tomorrow and yell "BLADES". This is what hifi is all about.
I will report back after listening to the Genelecs. And to make it clear: if I had had the money back then and the KEFs and AudioScienceReview would have been available from my start I would have gone straight to the Reference 3.
Edit: One thing that stood out: the owner showed me "Roger Walters - The Ballad of Bill Hubbart" where at the beginning there is a dog barking and a phone call that, when using the right setup and ideal speaker alignment, should simulate "rear sound" which worked extremely good on the KEF. I couldn't get this effect to work on my NuVero 170 yet ...
How did all the Kef's sound in comparison to your Nubert setup?
I also own some Nubert speakers, they are small A-200s brought 9 years ago at 345 euros each, still sound amazing. Better than some 20 year old PMC TB1s I got out of the loft to use in a new home studio setup. (different place to the A-200s)
I don't change my stuff often as you can tell but I am going to upgrade the PMC's. I was considering the Gelelec 360As but reading this post has made me rethink this. Why don't I stick with a brand I like and save myself thousands of pounds. My set up is not acoustically ideal anyway and the Genelec's are pig ugly to boot. The NuVero 60s or 70s would work fine in my set up using my existing Nord amp and they are pretty looking things.
I might also take a weekend brake to Germany with some of the money I've saved and visit the factory so I can listen to the options.
The Nubert Nuvero - all of them - have a moderate raise between 2 and 7 Khz. This may sound nice first, but can get bothersome the longer you listen.
Also the wide dispersion is unrivalled and sounds really nice. It's something I miss a little compared to the super neutral and controlled KEF Reference 3 Meta.
My choice was between the Genelecs and KEFs, but I went for the KEFs for a simple reason: they do all of that what the Genelecs do, but passive. And they are far prettier. It was a close battel though, if I hadn't had extreme luck with the price of my Kef Reference 3 Meta, the decision would probably be still unmade today.
For a while I also had the NuPro X3000 which were just phenomenal. I adored them, but they had this small beep-bug that annoyed the hell out of me. The newer generations don't seem to have that issue. But now I settled for Kali IN-5 in my office. I am curious how the NuZeo sound though, but they are hella expensive and I don't see the merit from the looks of them. As usual, there is no data published really. And they don't have bluetooth, that's a no go for an active speaker of 3k+ per pair.
I wish Nubert all the best, but I am just not their target group anymore. Coaxials have hooked me for forever, probably.
As for your line of thought, yeah, keep the A-Series speakers. I honestly think the first two generations of active speakers from Nubert were heavily underpriced. I still have the AS250 Soundbar which isn't avaiable anymore, and it looks and sounds better than their current 900 € model. Note that the AS250 was 550 €. But if you really want to upgrade, I think any Nubert speaker is good. I can only emphasize this: Nubert speakers ARE good speakers, they have just some off-industry approaches in some parts.
Maybe take a REW measurement of the speakers to see what you're working with. Maybe even publish it here, would be interesting!
Turns out you can adjust the toe-in of the coaxials to an extreme degree—placing them nearly parallel and aiming 'beside' the listening position—and still achieve a coherent, but much more spacious and comfortable sound. Problem solved!Okay, this is getting weird.
I started this shipping process since I wanted to know how my Nubert system back then actually measured to make an educated decision about getting coaxials - KEF to be precise.
After this review I went and sold my Nubert system and went onto my "endgame" system, namely KEF Reference 3 Meta as fronts, 2x KC92 Subs and R3 non-meta as surrounds.
While the clarity and sound performance overall is unrivalled, there is that thing that bothers me that I though I will get used to: the wide, comfortable room sound that the Nubert created with their "sail" shaped baffle. The KEF just sound so narrow compared to them. I know that 50° constant directivity isn't really "narrow" but it just pales in comparison to the about 80° the Nuvero have up until about 8 Khz, and I really miss that.
So, what are my options currently?
- From the time of my Nubert System I still have my moderately thick acoustic wall pictures. Should I remove them? My living room setup is arranged in a way that my LEFT Reference 3 speaker is in a corner and to its own right it has the wall with two acoustic wall pictures. The RIGHT Reference 3 speaker has nothing to its left, only an open space, so there are no reflecitons. Would removing the acoustic wall pictures make the room more "life"?
- Maybe it's the ceiling reflections of the mid range I didn't really have before since the NuVero 170 had a heavy combfilter effect vertically. Should I I dampf the ceiling?
- What about the ball behind my listening position? These too have acoustic wall paintings.
Not that with all the wall paintings, I can just remove the acoustic foam, so the room design would stay the same.