KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF R3

[alitomr1979]

The “elevated treble in the R3” I hear repeatedly here makes me think if mine came broken because I hear they have much less energy on the treble than the Metas. I don’t know where the hell I saved My mic calibration file, and that means Indont know if it’s my hearing thats broken or my R3s.

I just upped the frequencies above 9k by 3db using Roon DSP and I can hear much more highs, and Now I think it’s the metas added detail there what I won’t find EQing.

I think when some people talk about small or big sounding they are referring more to the weight of the notes, especially the mid bass and lows. At this point I am convinced the soundstage of the metas is wider, but I currently don’t have them with me and I could perfectly be listening to differences in the rooms where the speakers are.

 

[Ataraxia]

I've had alot of time to play with Q150's, Metas, and R3's moving them between my desk and small living room area. Although there is a general performance and sound between all 3 (both R3's and Metas have a better overall tone, timbre, and bass response in addition to the Q150's excellent clarity).

R3's have bigger soundstage than Metas, the opposite of point source? in my living room. The R3's on desk are nice but definitely not optimum, which it seems actually obvious. They are engineered to want room and distance. Metas being point source really shine nearfield to closefield. I'm loving them on my desk and could see an endgame small listening room with a chair, Metas, and electronics all alone.

I'm finding they all sound subtly different when I've played around with small placement differences in the living room. BTW, I do not have any room treatment. I run YPAO every time I change speaks or stand placement. It improves the sound by clearing up the soundstage (more clear lines around details, vocals, and better instrument separation). But it sounds different if I place the mic 8 spots within a small square or slightly larger square. An aside, I could never be without room correction if I can help it, want Dirac next.

IMO my PC playing Tidal > USB in Schiit Modi 3+ > Emotiva BasX A-100 > Metas or R3's -- treble seems smoother, slightly more laid back and still revealing

Than:

Yamaha A2080 AVR Playing Tidal > R3's or Metas -- Excellent soundstage, lively, treble more unrefined and sparkly, it seems.

This is a lot of fun and I really like all my speakers but I have no idea if you should actually listen to what I am saying.

All that, this is my final decision on best use case for my current small apartment:

 

[BoredErica]

I've had alot of time to play with Q150's, Metas, and R3's moving them between my desk and small living room area. Although there is a general performance and sound between all 3 (both R3's and Metas have a better overall tone, timbre, and bass response in addition to the Q150's excellent clarity).

R3's have bigger soundstage than Metas, the opposite of point source? in my living room. The R3's on desk are nice but definitely not optimum, which it seems actually obvious. They are engineered to want room and distance. Metas being point source really shine nearfield to closefield. I'm loving them on my desk and could see an endgame small listening room with a chair, Metas, and electronics all alone.

I'm finding they all sound subtly different when I've played around with small placement differences in the living room. BTW, I do not have any room treatment. I run YPAO every time I change speaks or stand placement. It improves the sound by clearing up the soundstage (more clear lines around details, vocals, and better instrument separation). But it sounds different if I place the mic 8 spots within a small square or slightly larger square. An aside, I could never be without room correction if I can help it, want Dirac next.

IMO my PC playing Tidal > USB in Schiit Modi 3+ > Emotiva BasX A-100 > Metas or R3's -- treble seems smoother, slightly more laid back and still revealing

Than:

Yamaha A2080 AVR Playing Tidal > R3's or Metas -- Excellent soundstage, lively, treble more unrefined and sparkly, it seems.

This is a lot of fun and I really like all my speakers but I have no idea if you should actually listen to what I am saying.

All that, this is my final decision on best use case for my current small apartment:

What desk are you using in the first picture?

For the f12SE/R3, how do you like the finish? Is it easy to damage with the glossy finish? I was in another thread a while back and somebody was complaining about how glossy finishes in their experience don't wear well over time. I'm not sure if it'll be a problem though... it's not like I'm touching my speakers all the time.

I see you have a whole collection of Kef speakers... they all look really nice aesthetically. Side by side I can really see just how bulky the R3 would be on a desk. I feel like Metas having some curves help make the speaker look a little cuter.

 

[Ataraxia]

What desk are you using in the first picture?

For the f12SE/R3, how do you like the finish? Is it easy to damage with the glossy finish? I was in another thread a while back and somebody was complaining about how glossy finishes in their experience don't wear well over time. I'm not sure if it'll be a problem though... it's not like I'm touching my speakers all the time.

I see you have a whole collection of Kef speakers... they all look really nice aesthetically. Side by side I can really see just how bulky the R3 would be on a desk. I feel like Metas having some curves help make the speaker look a little cuter.

IKEA Gerton I stained. 61 x 29.5". For reference, here's the Q150's and R3's same desk:

Ahh. You just asked me the right question about F12SE Black Gloss. I love them and the finish is beautiful and durable in normal use, like not kicking it or bashing it with a bucket.

Mine have been perfect for the last three years (had 2 originally but sold one) but some maintenance jackass came into my apartment when I had it near the door shown in that pic and scuffed a line into the gloss!!! I was no here and never noticed it until I just recently moved to the opposite corner.

I'm still doing self therapy over it and I take great care to never damage my nice stuff, especially my 1K sub. I've moved my stuff three states ans never did damaged my speaks and subs and furniture.

Do not worry about Rythmik gloss, it is excellent and durable sans bashing, kicking, scraping with buckets or some odd shit that happened to mine when I was not home.

 

[BoredErica]

IKEA Gerton I stained. 61 x 29.5". For reference, here's the Q150's and R3's same desk:

Ahh. You just asked me the right question about F12SE Black Gloss. I love them and the finish is beautiful and durable in normal use, like not kicking it or bashing it with a bucket.

Mine have been perfect for the last three years (had 2 originally but sold one) but some maintenance jackass came into my apartment when I had it near the door shown in that pic and scuffed a line into the gloss!!! I was no here and never noticed it until I just recently moved to the opposite corner.

I'm still doing self therapy over it and I take great care to never damage my nice stuff, especially my 1K sub. I've moved my stuff three states ans never did damaged my speaks and subs and furniture.

Do not worry about Rythmik gloss, it is excellent and durable sans bashing, kicking, scraping with buckets or some odd shit that happened to mine when I was not home.

I will try not to bash speakers with a bucket in the future. I assume your general opinions about F12SE's gloss finish are the same for the R3's glossy finish?

I think the setup looks pretty cool. I'd prefer something a bit more girly but it looks clean. The amp looks cool, the desk is large enough to not look too cluttered. The R3 just kindda dominates the desk and visually I just think it's a little off. You don't toe the speakers in on the desk? I've always instinctively turned speakers so they're facing my head.

 

[dshreter]

R3 is imposing on a desk, and I personally don’t like having such a large speaker in my face.

I don’t think best audio quality would be having them pointed straight ahead on a desk. Anywhere from pointed straight at you to toed out slightly from that position depending on how bright or dark you prefer would be fine.

 

[Ataraxia]

I will try not to bash speakers with a bucket in the future. I assume your general opinions about F12SE's gloss finish are the same for the R3's glossy finish?

I think the setup looks pretty cool. I'd prefer something a bit more girly but it looks clean. The amp looks cool, the desk is large enough to not look too cluttered. The R3 just kindda dominates the desk and visually I just think it's a little off. You don't toe the speakers in on the desk? I've always instinctively turned speakers so they're facing my head.

Yes the quality of the F12SE black gloss is a perfect match in quality and color for the R3's. You can do white gloss F12SE and White R3's or Metas and it would be sweet. R3's are like modern industrial art IMO, they command the room really.

The R3's were never meant to stay on the desk, it was to compare the Metas and the R3's with the same audio chain. So I just kept them both straight forward. The Metas in that living room were great but the R3's better, larger sense of scale with music and movies.

 

[Ataraxia]

R3 is imposing on a desk, and I personally don’t like having such a large speaker in my face.

I don’t think best audio quality would be having them pointed straight ahead on a desk. Anywhere from pointed straight at you to toed out slightly from that position depending on how bright or dark you prefer would be fine.

Yes, I explained above. R3's are not preferable like that.

 

[alitomr1979]

In the end and after 9 pages of advice and discussion, what does OP thinks or have decided about his purchase? It seems things are about 50/50 when it comes to Metas vs. R3s...

 

[nothingman]

One thing I’d mention for the “just get a sub for the Meta if you need more SPL” people (this is obvious, and I’m not the first to make this case): it’s true, but only to a point. The UniQ midwoofer in the R3 doesn’t take over until 400hz. The UniQ midwoofer in the Meta is from 0-2100hz. So, even if you sub a Meta, that hollow 5.25in midwoofer is still doing ~80hz and above. There’s no real way to recreate what’s going on with the R3 if you have LS50+sub.

I say that as the owner of Metas with a single KC62. I think it’s a great combo. I have my HPF set at 95hz (LR 24db/oct), and it goes a long way to transforming the clarity and heft of the Metas, but at the end of the day you can only push them so far. Same goes for the KC62, so they’re a good match that way. Note: the KEF-recommended HPF of 70hz would provide even less relief.

I wish I had a better understood all of this before making my Meta vs. R3 decision, but I’m still very happy. I’m in love with the size and look of the Metas (matte black + gold for me), I love the point source presentation at my relatively short listening distance of 8 feet, and I like that I can tackle room modes better by being able to get the best placement and phase integration of the subwoofer with my miniDSP SHD. It sounds wonderful in my small room and I hardly ever but up against the limits, but sometimes I do wish I had an extra pair of 6.5 woofers crossed to 400hz like the R3 so that the UniQ could go full blast as well. It’s the limiting factor in mine.

As said, nothing revolutionary, but maybe helps clarify someone else’s thoughts. They’re incredible competent speakers and both great values in my book.

 

[alitomr1979]

One thing I’d mention for the “just get a sub for the Meta if you need more SPL” people (this is obvious, and I’m not the first to make this case): it’s true, but only to a point. The UniQ midwoofer in the R3 doesn’t take over until 400hz. The UniQ midwoofer in the Meta is from 0-2100hz. So, even if you sub a Meta, that hollow 5.25in midwoofer is still doing ~80hz and above. There’s no real way to recreate what’s going on with the R3 if you have LS50+sub.

I say that as the owner of Metas with a single KC62. I think it’s a great combo. I have my HPF set at 95hz (LR 24db/oct), and it goes a long way to transforming the clarity and heft of the Metas, but at the end of the day you can only push them so far. Same goes for the KC62, so they’re a good match that way. Note: the KEF-recommended HPF of 70hz would provide even less relief.

I wish I had a better understood all of this before making my Meta vs. R3 decision, but I’m still very happy. I’m in love with the size and look of the Metas (matte black + gold for me), I love the point source presentation at my relatively short listening distance of 8 feet, and I like that I can tackle room modes better by being able to get the best placement and phase integration of the subwoofer with my miniDSP SHD. It sounds wonderful in my small room and I hardly ever but up against the limits, but sometimes I do wish I had an extra pair of 6.5 woofers crossed to 400hz like the R3 so that the UniQ could go full blast as well. It’s the limiting factor in mine.

As said, nothing revolutionary, but maybe helps clarify someone else’s thoughts. They’re incredible competent speakers and both great values in my book.

And this is what I mean when I say “if I go with the metas I know I will miss some things I have with the R3”. I have the original LS50, the original LS50W a d the R3. I love them all, and I’ve had both the Wireless and passive version where I have the R3, crossed at different points from 60hz to 120hz, and they cannot be R3s. They simply can’t. R3 can do a lot of what the LS50 do. Not all, but a lot. That’s is why even after being so impressed with the metas I don’t regret my R3 purchase or have considered trading them.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Crossing the metas will improve the overall performance from KEF LS50m that's right, but block the port of the KEF R3 and cross them at 80hz will improve the R3s speakers too,
I hope one day i can block these 2 ports from my R7s and cross them with 2 subwoofers, these speakers will play their 80hz-20khz better with tons of headroom + 2 subs
I only want to know how the r7 sounds sealed + 2 subs lol, since the R7s alone can shake the walls that will be very interesting.

 

[alitomr1979]

Crossing the metas will improve the overall performance from KEF LS50m that's right, but block the port of the KEF R3 and cross them at 80hz will improve the R3s speakers too,
I hope one day i can block these 2 ports from my R7s and cross them with 2 subwoofers, these speakers will play their 80hz-20khz better with tons of headroom + 2 subs
I only want to know how the r7 sounds sealed + 2 subs lol, since the R7s alone can shake the walls that will be very interesting.

I was testing the R3 with the foam plugs and found the bass was severely lacking. I took the center piece of the foam bung and I actually liked them very much even without DSP. Right now I have them with the partial foam and the subs are pushing 80hz and below. Some songs still sound boxy and vocals a little congested because there is too much energy from around 90hz to 200hz. I’ll close the port and will let you know how I like them sealed with subs taking over from 80-100hz. Since the R series are so similar, especially from the R7 and below, you can probably makes inferences about how they will be based on how the R3 performs.

Remember I don’t have an actual crossover. I am sending full band signals from the amplifier preouts to the subs, and then from Roon’s DSP I am EQing practically cutting the frequencies that get too hot from the added subs. This works similar to a crossover when it comes to the speakers excursion and work reproducing lows the speakers have to make, because the signals they receive from those low frequencies and very low. I would like to know if other people try this and what we scientifically about this way of handling the excursion and distortion issues with not full band speakers when there is no crossover available.

I know for a fact that you limit the output of the undesirable range and the excursion and distortion associated with it, but there always something more when it comes to sounds. I’ve been doing this since I bought the R3 and before them with the passive OG LS50, with great results to my ears.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

I was testing the R3 with the foam plugs and found the bass was severely lacking. I took the center piece of the foam bung and I actually liked them very much even without DSP. Right now I have them with the partial foam and the subs are pushing 80hz and below. Some songs still sound boxy and vocals a little congested because there is too much energy from around 90hz to 200hz. I’ll close the port and will let you know how I like them sealed with subs taking over from 80-100hz. Since the R series are so similar, especially from the R7 and below, you can probably makes inferences about how they will be based on how the R3 performs.

Remember I don’t have an actual crossover. I am sending full band signals from the amplifier preouts to the subs, and then from Roon’s DSP I am EQing practically cutting the frequencies that get too hot from the added subs. This works similar to a crossover when it comes to the speakers excursion and work reproducing lows the speakers have to make, because the signals they receive from those low frequencies and very low. I would like to know if other people try this and what we scientifically about this way of handling the excursion and distortion issues with not full band speakers when there is no crossover available.

I know for a fact that you limit the output of the undesirable range and the excursion and distortion associated with it, but there always something more when it comes to sounds. I’ve been doing this since I bought the R3 and before them with the passive OG LS50, with great results to my ears.

Im using the foam '' o '' instead of the full foam in my R7 for both ports
In apo EQ i use a low shelf filter gain +5dB@90hz for my R7, the bass from R series is too weak, but in contrast with the previous series from 2011 the bass can play very loud and still very clean, the previous drivers start to make mechannical problems very soon in comparason.

 

[Ataraxia]

A couple more points. Metas seem to disappear a good degree better than R3's. Makes sense due to point source, box size, and there's probably something to that curved face. I agree with @nothingman the R3's crossover smoother to subs than Metas. If you would like me to keep adding to the confusion, just let me know.

Anyone interested I find the deskfield Meta run by my Emotiva A-100, Schiit Modi 3+, PC Tidal, sounds excellent. They just released this which is updated to include a switch between straight amp or pre-amp/amp with volume control. Hopefully @amirm will get one to measure at some point. Apparently it's also a beast headphone amp if you're a headphone person.

BasX A2m Stereo Flex Amplifier

The BasX A2m is a flexible stereo amplifier that combines excellent audio performance with several unique and extremely useful features for both big and small systems.

emotiva.com

 

[alitomr1979]

Im using the foam '' o '' instead of the full foam in my R7 for both ports
In apo EQ i use a low shelf filter gain +5dB@90hz for my R7, the bass from R series is too weak, but in contrast with the previous series from 2011 the bass can play very loud and still very clean, the previous drivers start to make mechannical problems very soon in comparason.
View attachment 170677

Now that you mention this, I remember I tried the R300 with my Cambridge CXA81 while it was being tested and I was impressed with the bass, both quantity and speed and detail, of the R300. I must say that I was impressed with the added bass and agility the CXA81 brought to the R300, since we were very familiar with its sound coming from an entry level emotiva and then from the monster Monoprice Monolith 200wpc power amp. Positioning in my uncle’s house is not optimal at all, and we didn’t have as many issues trying to make it sound good as with the new R3. The reason why I didn’t get those R300 was because there was something lacking, and next to both passive and active LS50 they were not as engaging. I always thought if they make those R300 brighter and added something the LS50 had an they didnt, I'd jump right at them. I think thats what they achieved with this gen R, especifically the R3.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Now that you mention this, I remember I tried the R300 with my Cambridge CXA81 while it was being tested and I was impressed with the bass, both quantity and speed and detail, of the R300. I must say that I was impressed with the added bass and agility the CXA81 brought to the R300, since we were very familiar with its sound coming from an entry level emotiva and then from the monster Monoprice Monolith 200wpc power amp. Positioning in my uncle’s house is not optimal at all, and we didn’t have as many issues trying to make it sound good as with the new R3. The reason why I didn’t get those R300 was because there was something lacking, and next to both passive and active LS50 they were not as engaging. I always thought if they make those R300 brighter and added something the LS50 had an they didnt, I'd jump right at them. I think thats what they achieved with this gen R, especifically the R3.

I found my R300s more bright overall than my R7s..., I like the smoothness from the new UNIQ

Im driving my R7s with the Purifi eigentakt power amp





Both of them needs to boost their slope, but the R300 doesnt get much louder before have mechannical problems, the R7 can get much more louder before any problem, is not even comparable the max output from the new woofers.
Both using the purifi as power amp

 

[Descartes]

Hey Banjo, I dont know, seriously. My experience with the LS50 as front wasnt satisfactory as I said, and even though the some of the issues that caused my dislike (dynamics, best performance when loud), they are still small monitors. Not only that, you would be putting them, next to speakers that if I have to use one word to describe I'd use imposing. That is something the LS50, OG or Metas, are not.

I'd say get them from a dealer that accepts home demos and try them with the alternative, R2C, and keep the one you like the most. My uncle has the R2c with his R300 and that thing is great as a center. I think most of its shortcomings (objective) dont have much impact on movie reproduction.

A few months ago a friend who works in a store that gives employees more than 50% discount over retail offered me to get the R2c with his discount, and it was like 675USD. I almost went for it, but I am honestly satisfied with the Q600c and I was considering making the upgrades I did last week, which for me, is very serious money.

Try both options n your house, yur setup. For me that is harder because i amnot in the US. The third R3 is more complicated as they are not sold as units, are they?

Lucky who’s the dealer I am ready to buy at 50% off!

 

[Descartes]

I've had alot of time to play with Q150's, Metas, and R3's moving them between my desk and small living room area. Although there is a general performance and sound between all 3 (both R3's and Metas have a better overall tone, timbre, and bass response in addition to the Q150's excellent clarity).

R3's have bigger soundstage than Metas, the opposite of point source? in my living room. The R3's on desk are nice but definitely not optimum, which it seems actually obvious. They are engineered to want room and distance. Metas being point source really shine nearfield to closefield. I'm loving them on my desk and could see an endgame small listening room with a chair, Metas, and electronics all alone.

I'm finding they all sound subtly different when I've played around with small placement differences in the living room. BTW, I do not have any room treatment. I run YPAO every time I change speaks or stand placement. It improves the sound by clearing up the soundstage (more clear lines around details, vocals, and better instrument separation). But it sounds different if I place the mic 8 spots within a small square or slightly larger square. An aside, I could never be without room correction if I can help it, want Dirac next.

IMO my PC playing Tidal > USB in Schiit Modi 3+ > Emotiva BasX A-100 > Metas or R3's -- treble seems smoother, slightly more laid back and still revealing

Than:

Yamaha A2080 AVR Playing Tidal > R3's or Metas -- Excellent soundstage, lively, treble more unrefined and sparkly, it seems.

This is a lot of fun and I really like all my speakers but I have no idea if you should actually listen to what I am saying.

All that, this is my final decision on best use case for my current small apartment:

View attachment 170565



View attachment 170566

View attachment 170567

Thank you for sharing this picture, I did not realize how much bigger the R3 is compared to the LS50!

How do you like the sound of the R3 vs the LS50?
And if you could only afford one pair of them which would ones you choose?

 

[BoredErica]

Yeah, you really have to look at the dimensions listed on Kef site, get a tape measurer out, and figure out how large this stuff is. R3 is huge for a desk.