KEF R3 meta Measurements

[Mnyb]

Yes, also the listening impression can be different as humans automatically adapt to the room acoustics in few minutes when they are in a room which probably won't happen though a recording. About equalised binaural recordings, like you say they are unfortunately rare, but very few try to make some, like for example Oluv but even there it is still a work in progress.

Ok my listening room is absolutely cr*p but I've adopted and due to limitations i sit close to a backwall I've adopted to that to probably.
If you want to make a speakers "sound" terrible record it at my home

 

[Alexx]

In another 3D (always kef R3 but home theater) a user received the new R3 Meta last Friday.

Probably in the next few days he will give an opinion.
See you soon.

 

[dogmamann]

In another 3D (always kef R3 but home theater) a user received the new R3 Meta last Friday.

Probably in the next few days he will give an opinion.
See you soon.

Yes, buying based on users opinion with lot of variables is a better idea than reading the graphs and deciding.

 

[mglobe]

Yes, buying based on users opinion with lot of variables is a better idea than reading the graphs and deciding.

You might want to add a emoji.

 

[exm]

The r meta is better than the old References from measurements. R meta is better than the old Reference.

I have both the non-Meta Reference (5s, 4 Center) and R3 Meta, and there's no way the R-Series Meta is "better" than the non-Meta References.

 

[Alexx]

Wait.

The point is that several people begin to have R3 Meta and their impressions especially if all of them of the same opinion can give a vague idea of how the speaker could sound...

It is obvious that no one buys a loudspeaker on the basis of other people's personal opinions, which is why I have planned (which everyone will do) a direct listening test between the R3 and R3 Meta.

@exm: So no difference between "Meta" and non "Meta" Model?

Thanks for the explanation.
A greeting.

 

[exm]

Wait.

The point is that several people begin to have R3 Meta and their impressions especially if all of them of the same opinion can give a vague idea of how the speaker could sound...

It is obvious that no one buys a loudspeaker on the basis of other people's personal opinions, which is why I have planned (which everyone will do) a direct listening test between the R3 and R3 Meta.

@exm: So no difference between "Meta" and non "Meta" Model?

Thanks for the explanation.
A greeting.

From the testing I have done at home, purely listening to my favorite music the Reference non-Meta > R Meta > R non-meta. The R Meta is definitely improved but to boldly claim it's better than the non-Meta Reference purely on a graph "sounds" good on paper. There's a lot more that goes into a Reference Speaker vs an updated Uni-Q tweeter.

 

[nygafre]

Did the live test dissapear from youtube?

 

[nygafre]

Wait.

The point is that several people begin to have R3 Meta and their impressions especially if all of them of the same opinion can give a vague idea of how the speaker could sound...

It is obvious that no one buys a loudspeaker on the basis of other people's personal opinions, which is why I have planned (which everyone will do) a direct listening test between the R3 and R3 Meta.

@exm: So no difference between "Meta" and non "Meta" Model?

Thanks for the explanation.
A greeting.

I have (kind of) compared them, not directly but back to back, and now have the new Meta. My unqualified impression is that some higher frequencies are more noticeable on the Metas. E.g. From some of my standard tracks I can clearly hear clapping from the audience in the background. I could hardly notice this on the R3’s.

(I did do some measurements/EQ during my time with the R3’s, but not the Metas so far).

I also found the R3s somewhat ‘boxy’ with male voices, but this went away after EQ’ing. I would say the Metas sound better out of the box in this regard.. all depending on room, setup, acoustics and so on.

 

[Alexx]

Great thanks.

It is good that the impression is the same for all people who have tried or compared them.

In fact it must have been foreseeable that the new update would indisputably bring some small improvements especially in the medium-high range...at least these were "Kef's" intentions.

In Italy they should arrive at the end of April, I hope to try them soon, and in case of making the change.
A thousand thanks.

 

[dogmamann]

I have both the non-Meta Reference (5s, 4 Center) and R3 Meta, and there's no way the R-Series Meta is "better" than the non-Meta References.

From measurements, R Metas have a wider dispersion, otherwise they are same which makes R meta superior, old References hold are no longer the References. There is no reason why anyone should buy a used old Reference or old stock References even if its lower priced than the R metas. If looks matters then yes, sonically the R11 meta destroys the Reference 3s at a lower price easily in every category. Reference 5 is a better speaker as it wont distort with bass. But the old reference 1 and Reference 3 are a waste of money and time unless looks are so much important than actual performance. Reference 3 distorts with bass below 50hz above 99db which is a joke considering they used to cost above 8k a pair. They still need a sub or two after spending so much money !!

 

[dogmamann]

From the testing I have done at home, purely listening to my favorite music the Reference non-Meta > R Meta > R non-meta. The R Meta is definitely improved but to boldly claim it's better than the non-Meta Reference purely on a graph "sounds" good on paper. There's a lot more that goes into a Reference Speaker vs an updated Uni-Q tweeter.

Can you show in measurements, why the reference non meta is still superior than R meta? I guess not. If yes, can you point it out other than bass extension.

 

[dogmamann]

I have (kind of) compared them, not directly but back to back, and now have the new Meta. My unqualified impression is that some higher frequencies are more noticeable on the Metas. E.g. From some of my standard tracks I can clearly hear clapping from the audience in the background. I could hardly notice this on the R3’s.

(I did do some measurements/EQ during my time with the R3’s, but not the Metas so far).

I also found the R3s somewhat ‘boxy’ with male voices, but this went away after EQ’ing. I would say the Metas sound better out of the box in this regard.. all depending on room, setup, acoustics and so on.

In real world, whenever I had listened tothe old references, I felt the same “Boxiness” even the ls50 meta felt way less boxy than the old references. I couldn’t listen to the r metas but again my listening test opinion wont matter to anyone else !

 

[bodhi]

I would think that in any room the Reference 5 is a good fit, R3, meta or not, would sound inferior. I mean the Reference 5 is a huge beast of a speaker.

R11 Meta vs Reference 5 non-meta would be interesting comparison.

 

[Steve Dallas]

From measurements, R Metas have a wider dispersion, otherwise they are same which makes R meta superior, old References hold are no longer the References. There is no reason why anyone should buy a used old Reference or old stock References even if its lower priced than the R metas. If looks matters then yes, sonically the R11 meta destroys the Reference 3s at a lower price easily in every category. Reference 5 is a better speaker as it wont distort with bass. But the old reference 1 and Reference 3 are a waste of money and time unless looks are so much important than actual performance. Reference 3 distorts with bass below 50hz above 99db which is a joke considering they used to cost above 8k a pair. They still need a sub or two after spending so much money !!

In what bizarro world is wider dispersion always superior?

To my ears, smooth directivity trumps wide dispersion, and narrower dispersion often works better in small rooms, reflective rooms, etc.

 

[exm]

From measurements, R Metas have a wider dispersion, otherwise they are same which makes R meta superior, old References hold are no longer the References. There is no reason why anyone should buy a used old Reference or old stock References even if its lower priced than the R metas. If looks matters then yes, sonically the R11 meta destroys the Reference 3s at a lower price easily in every category. Reference 5 is a better speaker as it wont distort with bass. But the old reference 1 and Reference 3 are a waste of money and time unless looks are so much important than actual performance. Reference 3 distorts with bass below 50hz above 99db which is a joke considering they used to cost above 8k a pair. They still need a sub or two after spending so much money !!

The Reference Series uses much better drivers for HF/MF and LF (even though it's an older generation), better crossovers, larger and better tuned cabinets among others. I won't throw in build quality but I'm sure the old Reference 5 blows the R11 Meta out of the water even if the R11 has the Meta Uni-Q. I've owned the R11 and the LF/MF is seriously lacking compared to the Reference 5 due to what I just outlined above.

 

[dogmamann]

The Reference Series uses much better drivers for HF/MF and LF (even though it's an older generation), better crossovers, larger and better tuned cabinets among others. I won't throw in build quality but I'm sure the old Reference 5 blows the R11 Meta out of the water even if the R11 has the Meta Uni-Q. I've owned the R11 and the LF/MF is seriously lacking compared to the Reference 5 due to what I just outlined above.

Can you point this superiority of the Reference in the measurements? I see nothing better other than bass extension on references vs r meta here. But reference meta clearly has improvements as per measurements.

 

[dogmamann]

In what bizarro world is wider dispersion always superior?

To my ears, smooth directivity trumps wide dispersion, and narrower dispersion often works better in small rooms, reflective rooms, etc.

Narrow directivity also means narrow soundstage. If one has only used KEFs, then its pointless to talk about it, as they have no possibility to have a perspective about how it would sound when the dispersion is wider!!

 

[exm]

Can you point this superiority of the Reference in the measurements? I see nothing better other than bass extension on references vs r meta here. But reference meta clearly has improvements as per measurements.

I understand we are on ASR, and that the site is mostly data driven. Got it. I'm glad that the graph shows that the R Metas are superior and I encourage you to buy one of those if you're interested in Kef speakers. I'll gladly keep on using my inferior non-Meta Reference speakers (and my superior R3 Meta for sides - although I guess I should make these my front speakers as you said)?

 

[Steve Dallas]

Narrow directivity also means narrow soundstage. If one has only used KEFs, then its pointless to talk about it, as they have no possibility to have a perspective about how it would sound when the dispersion is wider!!

Why would you assume someone has only used KEFs? If that is directed at me, you are hugely mistaken.

There is such a thing as a soundstage that is too wide. Lighting up the side walls in a small room creates reflections that smear that wide soundstage to the point many people would choose narrower dispersion.

And you did not answer the question. Why does a speaker having a single better trait automatically make it superior as a matter of fact?