Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
KEF R3 Meta: The Speaker to Beat.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 чер 2023
- Written review/data can be found here:
www.erinsaudio...
Support the cause:
Patreon: / erinsaudiocorner
Contribute via PayPal: www.paypal.com...
🛒🛒
Generic Affiliate Links:
Amazon: amzn.to/3v6i6ov
Audio Advice: www.audioadvic...
Best Buy: shop-links.co/...
Crutchfield: shop-links.co/...
Emotiva: emotiva.com?aff=14
Monoprice: bit.ly/3yAY6NH
Parts Express: bit.ly/3AqfWo3
SVS: www.dpbolvw.ne...
Arendal Sound: arendalsound.c...
If you are shopping at any of the above stores then please consider using my generic affiliate links above to make the purchase through. Purchases through these links can earn me a small commission - at no additional cost to you - and help me continue to provide the community with free content and reviews. Doesn't matter if it's a TV from Crutchfield, budget speakers from Audio Advice or a pair of socks from Amazon, just use the link above before you make your purchase. Thank you!
____________________
All of my tests are conducted using KLIPPEL Hardware and Software. KLIPPEL is an innovative leader in providing unique test equipment for electro-acoustical transducers and audio systems. Founded in 1997 by Dr. Wolfgang Klippel, the novel techniques developed for control and measurement systems of loudspeakers and other transducers are the result of over 30 years of fundamental research. This provides more accurate physical models of loudspeakers, micro-speakers and headphones valid for both small and large amplitudes. The focus is on revealing the root causes of signal distortion and defects and giving practical indications for improvements in design and manufacturing of audio products. For information on KLIPPEL products, please visit their site below:
www.klippel.de/...
Generic Affiliate Links:
Amazon: amzn.to/3v6i6ov
Audio Advice: www.audioadvice.com/?referral=erins-audio-corner
Best Buy: shop-links.co/ciyeVq6O7ou
Crutchfield: shop-links.co/cgZmmT81jmh
Emotiva: emotiva.com?aff=14
Monoprice: bit.ly/3yAY6NH
Parts Express: bit.ly/3AqfWo3
SVS: www.dpbolvw.net/click-7732025-13006332
Arendal Sound: arendalsound.com/store/?refer=hardisj
If you are shopping at any of the above stores then please consider using my generic affiliate links above to make the purchase through. Purchases through these links can earn me a small commission - at no additional cost to you - and help me continue to provide the community with free content and reviews. Doesn't matter if it's a TV from Crutchfield, budget speakers from Audio Advice or a pair of socks from Amazon, just use the link above before you make your purchase. Thank you!
This is a purely ported enclosure, not mixture, not anything else, it's just that the output is a bit lower above the port tuning
@@ctr289 google extended bass shelf.
@@ErinsAudioCorner I don't need to. A lot of ported speakers have a little shelf above the port tuning frequency. It often happens when you tune the port too low for the woofer/enclosure and the woofers can't fill in the area above the port or when the port output has a narrow range and doesn't enforce the frequencies above the port peak. It has nothing do do with sealed operation or characteristics, it's just a slight variation in port tuning/characteristics.
@@ctr289 You are incorrect. This is not a purely ported enclosure. It's tuned with the shelf in place. You are supplied with a port plug and a partial port plug to tune the shelf. Btw I own a pair.
@@wmilas2 Partial port to plug to tune the shelf? Can you give any details? What does tune the shelf mean?! The shelf is already there without the partial plug or the complete plug, you just lessen the port output with the partial plug. There are a lot of speakers just like this, it's just a port that is tuned lower and the woofers don't fill the area above well enough. By contrast, if you tune the port higher, you'll have more output above the port, you won't have the shelf, but then the bass will drop at a higher frequency
Love it, you are the few ones that tell like it is and not try to sell everything being "reviewed" unlike many others.
Agreed thanks Erin have learned a ton from your videos.
I like that Erin sticks to speakers, too. So many other reviewers these days are featuring and including so many other components in their reviews of any particular component. Sounds like marketing, nothing more or less. There are so many different speakers alone that it's almost impossible to review most of them in any depth, as well as other components, too.
@@MJLUCEY-sd1mq you can easily tell because many of them whom shall not be named are now selling stuff
Outstanding review of a speaker i definitely want to own. I especially appreciate the comparison to other speakers, as well as the comparison to the regular Kef R3. But most of all I love your ear, because you have the same sensitivity to overly-boosted treble that I do, and insist on neutrality above all in the speakers you review. Thanks, Erin!
I just bought the Indigo Blue version. Can't wait until they get here. I'm going to connect them to my McIntosh MC6700 integrated.
A superbly comprehensive and informative review. Thanks for including some helpful comparisons in the same price range, as well as the advice for anyone deciding between the new “meta” version and the previous model.
Your data approach and thoughts convinced me to dip my toe into the audio world with these speakers as my first. These reviews are very helpful for people with no prior knowledge as you break down characteristics of what makes a good speaker and explain it very well.
I'm on the other side of the world so it didn't make sense with the affiliate links. Here's me showing my appreciation. Thanks and keep up the good work Erin!
Wow! Thank you very much!
Did you try Evoke 20 in your space?
Thank you, Erin! Keep up the good work. Always informative and balanced.
Thanks so much!
Congrats for being the first to put these on the Klippel, Erin. As always, a teriffic review. Given that I already have a pair of SVS SB 2000s, these may be a great move up from my LS 50 Metas, which would then go to surround duty.
With a NAIM STAR the LS50 were horriable like Bose horriable. I have the LSXii for my macbook pro pro chip. Went with KEF R3, LS50 were shocking.
Awesome review and awesome speaker.🙂
Really is an absolute steal, when you compare the measurements of this thing to the Reference variant that is 5 times the price, it's as near as the very same with a different finish. I think Kef have really made a speaker that is genuinely aimed at being attainable without sacrificing much if anything. I don't normally buy speakers as I DIY, but I'm tempted to get a pair of these as a reference for future builds.
Only other speaker I've been tempted to buy is the JBL L100, although literally just for the 70's vibe and those orange grills.😂 Would love to see you review those if you ever get the opportunity.
The guy who owns KEF a chinese guy is an audio nut, so Kef has carte blanche to produce the best.
it just crossed my mind that when we talk about directivity, listening window and all that, any time two or more speakers play the same sound, there is going to be interference... so two sound sources produce a different directivity graph than just one speaker alone (again, when identical sounds are played simultaneously).
thank you for the review and all the effort to produce such good content.
Thanks Erin. Still need to watch, but I'm sure it performs great. BTW, the company is indeed called "KEF", not "Kef". For "Kent Engineering & Foundry". 😉
Glad to have you back with your thorough reviews.
Thank you.
Another excellent review, Erin. I just purchased the R7, R2C, 2 pairs of R8s, and two KF92s during that huge sale. I wish I could afford the Metas, but this sale was exactly the one I needed to get into KEF. I'll be keeping an eye out for the R6 Meta review! And I know it's a long shot, but an R7 review would give me the full EAC measurement series. That would be awesome.
I don't think I'll be reviewing any of the original R-series speakers anymore. I did review the R3, R2c, R8 and R5.
@@ErinsAudioCorner Yep. I've watched all of those front-to-back a few times. I am hoping the R7 measures better than the R5, because it didn't fair too well in your review. May need to just save up for the R7 Meta or R3 Meta. I like having towers for my front stage, but may need to go with the R3 Meta for better performance.
@@ErinsAudioCorner but the r5 is the speaker that sells much less than the r7 r11, and everyone do the lazy way and review the small ones (small speakers)..., we need reviews of the r11/r7/metas....
@@ACM1000000PT I mean, I would if I could. I just don’t have the space or add-on piece needed to test tower speakers at this time. I’ve requested a quote for the Klippel piece I need but it’s about $5k. So for now I’ll just have to be lazy …
@@ErinsAudioCorner :( so sad, i thinked you just dont wanna lift the speaker;(. Everyone do bookshelfs reviews/measures but nobody towers, good luck!
I have an old one, original R3 and I am happy with them. There are so smooth and warm sound with rotel A12 mk2. I can listen them all day long comfortable. The new one maybe are most detalic but, more sharper and dry too. Many users report hearing sibilance in vocals. No reason to change them for me.
Thanks for the review Erin. I currently own both the revel 126be and the 226be but have previously owned the original kef ls50 and R3. Although I think both revels are phenomenal speakers I plan on selling the 126 and bring back the either the meta version of the R3 or the ls50. The point source nature of the kefs is a nice change of pace from the revels.
Hmm very interesting. I have owned the 228be and demoed the Reference 3 a few times and always felt the 228be was far better sounding. More open with much better highs and could play a lot louder. I used duel subs.
What do you think you missing from the Kefs?
I swopped out my 228be for JBL 4367s that do almost everything better. The 4367 has so much more detail. Top to bottom more detail and way more dynamics. I had both in the same room system then sold off the 228be.
Going from a tower to a bookshelf is definately a downgrade, referring to going from 226be to LS50/R3.
Not my point. I am keeping the 226 it is by far the better performing speaker but the kef ls50 with its coaxial driver does certain things better. Ever speaker design has trade offs.
Thanks Erin.. good to see you back in the saddle again! Please review Ascendo "The6" Passive on wall speaker
KEF dropping consistent bangers
Seems that way.
I have these speakers. I’ve found the opposite to you, maybe it’s my room, or perhaps my electronics. But I find the high frequencies a little polite and towing them in slightly helps bring everything including the highs into sharper focus. I also find that raking them with a gentle backward tilt enhances the musical involvement. Puts the listener in the front row, rather than a few rows back!
Get them in blue! They're dark blue nothing flashy. They look awesome
I bought a pair of these when they were first available. I bought them in Indigo Blue with matching stands. They are very beautiful and looked great in my Living room. I was replacing a pair of Vienna Acoustic towers that I have had for some time. I was trying to downsize a bit. I ended up returning these and going back to my Vienna Acoustic towers. Now I realize I am comparing 8k speakers to 2K speakers. So it's not a fair fight. However I felt the R3 Meta was a great speaker. It was just a little thin in the lower vocal range and upper bass. It also sounded small in my living room. I could not get these R3 Metas to completely disappear in my living room. I am able to get my Vienna Acoustic towers to completely disappear in my living room even though they are much larger. Go figure... I do recommend the R3 Meta speaker but just don't expect miracles if you one who likes to turn things up. Go with the larger Meta models.
Thanks for sharing this with everyone.
If you buy the larger r metas, then they won’t disappear either then?!
Try the CSS Criton 1TDX Superior if you want to downsize but not in performance.
@@ATommy-lz4jd There is no specific answer to this. Your room will have a lot to do with this.
@@Audfile I always hate comments like this. Audio is very subjective. To say something is guaranteed better is simply misguided.
Great review and introduction to this speaker. A bit rich for me, but I'll keep it on my radar. Thanks as always for your time and effort to share this with us all.
Hi Erin. I'm working on getting my brand new bass technology ready for market. It's going to remedy the crux of the bass limitations forever. A few recordings are posted on my channel that should leave many people scratching their heads in temporary disbelief. Two of the recordings offer a good depiction of what it's like in person. The indoor video and the 2nd take outdoor recording. Thanks for giving my work a look see. Cheers!
Just bought the R7 for £1500 instead of £2700. New R3 Meta are £1900, R7 Meta £4000. The price hike is enormous and cannot justify it atm. Still glad with a decision I made. Bass performance is great!
The Hi-Fi companies are getting very greedy, and they are cutting their own throat with these silly price increases. I know a dealer who has told me he has not sold one oair of the R11 Meta because they are priced too high, and I gathered that went for other speakers in the range. They are a big KEF dealer in London.
@michaeloconnor9465
Well, when you get up into that price range, there are a lot more "interesting" loudspeakers to choose from.
And IME, these days the majority of common consumers aren't going for the larger and especially taller floor-standing loudspeakers. Something more similar to the LS50 suit their design aesthetic and room/interior design sensibilities.
And if you are an audiophile type with a $6K+/£5,500 budget, you're most likely going to be more attracted to something a bit more "exotic" or unique from a boutique HiFi brand.
Very nice, I just got the Kef R7's since they were discontinued and honestly it's a great speaker. I tried the OG R3, but without a sub it didn't really cut it.
Thanks Erin,, 👍⭐👍
Good review as usual! I have the feeling that a sub would be more necessary with those than with the lintons... but surely not for the same kind of listener.
That compression response linearity graph is cool. The low end looks like it could be a cone breakup measurement. Olive and Toole talked about cone breakup as much more perceptible than THD. I wonder what Accuton drivers look like on this graph.
Glad to see you back, I hope you're doing well!
Thank you for this comparison - as usual, top notch work sir.
Since owning the non-meta R3s, my wife likes them so much she wants that sound (and look) for the system on our TV as well. Any plans on an R5 or R7 review?
Thanks for the support! I did review the R5 but haven't reviewed the R7's. I don't think I'll be reviewing either of those in the meta version but you never know. Here's a link to the R5:
ua-cam.com/video/6oCN4iawV4g/v-deo.html
Looks like it is about coaxial speakers these days… looking forward to Ascendo review 😊
Glad to have you back! Love your reviews!
I like narrow dispersion speakers because less sidewall reflection. Granted if you toe them out you will get more sidewall reflection. I would listen on-axis and treat the sidewalls because the sidewalls should always be treated anyway. Kef has normal speakers sorted so I hope that in the future they would start making bigger real home theater speakers.
Yeah all their stuff, even the Reference 3 is too small IMO and lacks dynamics. I know people are saying BS but it is all about perspective. At the same price the JBL 4367 makes the reference 3 sound like toys.
@@JamesWilliams-gf8gm Depends what size room and what you are using them for. Dual servos subs with the Ref 3's and they get amazingly loud before distortion. The JBL's aren't nearly as linear. If you have a monster room, no subs, get the jbls and deal with slight kink in the linearity.
@@wmilas2 no one who has heard both would ever agree with your comments. The JBL is next level good. Silly dynamics and just sounds more real and breaths life into the music. It is more detailed too. A lot more detailed. There are too many factors to bother writing why they are more dynamic but they are. Dynamics is what makes music real. Not frequency response or anything else. From down the street you can tell a band is live. Why is that? Frequency response? Dispersion? Soundstage lol… all dynamics. The kefs simply don’t move enough air efficiently enough to have real dynamics. The JBLs don’t either but get a lot closer.
@@JamesWilliams-gf8gm the subs will move the air with the ref3, what are you talking? that was his point, REF3+Subs>jbl.
@@ACM1000000PT take a listen then let me know…. Dynamics are NOT in the sub bsss. Direct radiating tweeters are 2% efficient, 2%! I have heard the entire reference line. They are ok speakers. That do speakers things well.
That is the problem with measurements (I am a believer) they are a partial set. Square wave measurements are the only way to measure dynamics I can think of. For good dynamics you need good air coupling. Tiny direct radiation drivers will never get you there.
Dang Erin you are cranking them out lately! I love it! Thanks man!!
Speaker sounds great. I like a little brighter speaker 😊 Great review Erin as always.
Good review, How does the B&W 706 S3 compare with the KEF R3 Meta? Which speaker has a better sound stage or better lows and are they equal in high frequency?
Great review Erin, this gave me the understanding of how best to use my R3 metas in my particular set up, and yes, they just sound awesome!
Great to hear!
I have a Rega Aethos powering my non meta R3. I understand now why audio shows use the Hegel H390 to power these bad boys. They can handle and thrive on quality high current wattage. REL subwoofer filling out the bottom end and you’re good to go. Amazing speakers. I’m sure the Meta version dials it up a bit too. Great review and have a great night folks!
Parallel tuned 6th order question. 27 and 47 fb. 3.3 small chamber 9.9 big. For 2 12s. That setup sound ok
Does the R3 Meta sound more like the LS50 Meta? Reason asking is because I definitely liked how the LS50 Meta sounded more than the OG R3. Have yet to listen to the R3 Meta, although I personally prefer a wider dispersion speaker.
Like the new, pro background :) a bit more rgb led and we're good!
I've thought about doing that with ported setups, but I've always questioned how useful it can be. I have a new project that's running a very small 5.25" subwoofer, and it's the first time I'm planning to run a shelf like this just to get the F3 low enough. I haven't decided if I'd try for more than -3dB though. It's one of the few things you can do to really extend sensitivity of a midrange woofer into low frequencies. If they tuned in a standard way, so flat until roll off, they would likely be stuck with a F3 quite high, possible 80Hz or maybe 70Hz. But as a bit of a trick to extend low frequency existence (and I mean existence), you can run an overly large enclosure and tune the port lower than normal. This will create that shelf. Then you push it as far as you can go, and there's still a pretty hard limit. Picking the drop is a judgement call. Do you set the shelf at -3dB, -5dB, or opt for something different. When I mentioned existence, at so many dB down, you won't really perceive that output over the rest of the music. So you really only have a small range you can get away with to hold sensitivity before it's basically not useful. You can play with that virtually with an EQ. You can EQ down the bass on a speaker set or headphones and play with a shelf like this, cutting out a few dB, then a couple more, and eventually that low end response isn't loud enough to be useful. You can cut more, even a lot more, and barely perceive additional loss. You've lost too much presence to be useful. This shelf can work the same way. It's neat, but it has a limit. You mentioned room response, and that is a saving grace if it's there and enough to help this low end out.
It's a neat process because it can help the bottom end quite a bit. You might be able to gain another 20 or 30Hz down which can be HUGE for low frequency presence and body.
There is a big negative to this though. The small woofer still only has so much excursion to work with. Even if you extend the shelf for sensitivity, you will still hit an excursion limit, and you may have to manage this in some way. Shelf or no shelf, there will be a hard wall you can't fix. You've only got so much excursion to throw at low frequencies, and that shelf is not helping you out. The sensitivity is there, sure, but the SPL capability drops. And you can see this limit higher up in the frequency band, not just the very bottom end. This is very likely why you are seeing that big dynamic compression spike higher up. That's very likely the first excursion peak in that enclosure.
This product is a good example of tone vs flatness. We are often remarkably bad at tonal memory, so it's easy to have an overall warm or overall bright speakers, spend only a small amount of time with it, and you will auto tune mentally to neutral. We perceive non-linearity well. We perceive slope poorly. You can have quite a few dB bright or warm on the ends, and if the response curve is flat, it will typically sound "neutral." It can be hard to decipher this without having some reference comparators that are known quantities. You see this more readily if you go back and forth between it and the reference devices (other speakers, headphones, whatever). It will immediately give you a stark difference of warm, bright, etc. when compared that isn't easily perceived otherwise.
Tone like this can also be a tuning method of compensating for the note body/weight. A speaker that outputs a thinner bass note can have this partially countered with a higher low frequency dB level. This is done quite a lot with IEMs because many BA based ones or even some dynamic driver ones run very lean bass notes. You can add a few dB over the lower frequencies and pump up those energy levels. Often, this tricks our minds well enough for it to perceive it as "full" and with good authority. This bump makes it "sound even" to our brains. The bass can even come across more crisp and articulate than normal because the note is actually leaner and boosted. It can sound good, even authoritative. This is something Kef might be doing when tuning the speaker this way. Even though I've never heard one, I can make a pretty strong guess towards it, especially if you're perceiving it as sounding neutral.
You can often have pretty excellent low frequency clarity this way, but you might lose a bit of texture and even some of the 3-dimensional presence cues that are in those notes. We often have a lot of soundstage room cues in these lower notes. This can affect others stuff like instruments where a cello might sound a bit thin. It's a trade-off. The thinner note can be useful for noisy rooms. The leaner bass isn't overly boomy in a poorly treated room. It will always sound cleaner than other speakers in the same room. However, the thinner note can make the speaker sound "small" if it's not compensated well enough.
Usually to test this I like to use a pink noise track and EQ to what I perceive as flat. Then I'll play music. When the driver is thin in body in lower frequencies, it will come across sounding bright. Pink noise doesn't care about note thickness so you are actually tuning flat for loudness, not note characteristic. So when you go back to stuff that does like music, it's really apparent. This is a good tool to gauge aspects about body of note or even energy of presentation, and it shows some of what sound engineers are doing to compensate for driver shortcomings. The driver might be picked or tuned for certain desirable traits, but there may have to be some compromises and compensations to make the package work good as a whole.
Great video. Very interesting speaker. It’s rare to find a speaker with off axis response that is that good. I found I enjoy speakers with wide coverage as you do as well as a smooth off axis response because I can enjoy my music without having to sit in the sweet spot. Keep up the good work man! If you haven’t heard Danley Sound Labs speakers I would encourage you to take a listen and enjoy that. Certain Danley models are my favorite speakers.
I've been to their HQ. :)
ua-cam.com/video/PufikyzAo_Q/v-deo.html
I appreciate your overviews in the beginning of your videos. 👍
Glad to hear that!
Erin likes a speaker! 🤯🤯
Erin, your reviews are amongst the best technical pieces online. Fantastic work. Consider the following, how does a speaker move you? Does it touch your soul? Can it invoke passion? I would love to see some more subjective impressions within your work.
Hi Erin.
I regard you as the most honest and trustable YT reviewer. So don't please misunderstand.
For sure coaxial driver design has wider sweet spot which I too experienced.
But do you still recommend 2.2k speaker which can't go below 50hz, has limited volume output for higher volumes.
The reason I ask this is, I bought the original LS50 based on similar recommendations, bass was shy and added sub later to compensate, and eventually sold after trying a lot to get full range.
If you're trying to get full range - especially at higher volume then this speaker isn't for you. Or you will need to run a dedicated subwoofer.
@@ErinsAudioCorner Thanks Erin for your honest opinion again.
Awesome review. Definitely on my short list for upgrade. Thanks!
Wondering how the Ascend Acoustic LX would stack up against this one?
You have been missed welcome back
I have my speakers crossed in front of my listening position. Best position for my room, I move around when listening a lot as well
If only I could get a pair of these for the price that the old R3's are going for now...the old one looks good but you and Amir both seemed to think something was off with it
i have r11, r7, and r3. dude grab that sale shit up while you can. ive heard the r3 meta and i couldnt tell a difference. now i didnt ab them, but you get the idea. and i did hear the ls50 and the meta version and i preferred the non meta. remember meta is just a fancy sound absorber behind the tweeter. they already had a damper there just not as effiecent as the meta absorber. none of this is audible. they also changed the crossover which was 400 and 2.9 to 540 and 2.4. i prefer the 400 to the 540 due to room integration. take advantage my dude or live to regret it. they are virtually identical.
The hard decision is which color. I really like the white on my R300s, but the R3 Metas look really good in piano black with the dark grey baffles.
Argh! These speakers have gotten great subjective reviews, and now this! And the blue ones are dead sexy. Guess it's time to start saving. Thanks for the great content Erin!
Thanks for the great review. Did you encounter any distortion at high volume levels? Thanks.
I think the speaker designer Richard Vandersteen has been saying for years never to listen to a coaxial driver straight on. He said it is much more cohesive when it gets listened to just a bit off axis.
He mentions this on the December 1998 interview he had with Soundstage magazine
Thank you for very in-depth and interesting review! For me, to pay that money, it would have to have +- 60 degree width. That's what its missing to be truly exceptional
I hope you can get your hands on the Ascend Acoustics Sierra. Either the LX or 2EX V2. It should give them a good run.
I picked the LX over the non meta R3 a few months back and would love to see him review the LX,but the data Dave published shows that the LX can compete with every speaker Erin listed at the end of this video. The R3 Meta has better directivity than the LX too so it wouldn't win that battle. Compression is the only thing I haven't seen Dave publish yet.
I too chose the LXs over the R3 and would love to see how they compare!
When are KEF going to make an active wireless speaker in this size and 3 way format? Maybe a little larger to accommodate the amps.
Can i use these on a desk 🤔
Can you review the R 11 Meta please. I have a big room and want to see if it will work for me.
This or the Philharmonic BMR for movies? Both paired with a sub.
One of important things that you don't talk about it is speaker impedance it shows better then sensitivity , if its reactive load has more capacitive , it will be harder for amplifier to drive it , you get normally higher THD. Inductive load is easier then capacitive load. I measures with my AP555 ,amplifier with speaker load ( according to sterophile simulator speaker load) and it show that when it becomes capacitive load ,we get higher THD . If we hade less variation in impedance phase it would be better and easier for amplifier.
I didn’t know HP filtering reduced IMD. Good to know! Thanks
Good to see you back and hope you sre doing ok. I saw sales of the R series a while ago snd eas wondering if they were coming with "meta" tech down to the line. I was pretty much set in Arendal 1723 monitors for the front set but always being worried about that center channel and now this options come to the table 🤔
I feel with the KEF R300 and now the R3 meta it's end game for me. I don't see any minimal improvements in frequency response will help improve sound when I can simply EQ to taste. Especially in home cinema setups where imagining is a non issue
I really like your reviews, Erin! Great to see a channel/ review site like this.
Is there a reason you don't recommend extremem toe in (toe in frot of the listener)for time intensity trading? Toeing out reduces your sweet spot but gives you wider sound stage while toeing in widens the sweet spot but narrows the stage a bit. I run without a center channel with 4.2.2 setup. I like the toe in effect as it just really locks that phantom center imaging in. It also helps when you move about the room if your toe in is aggressive enough. You always get to enjoy both speakers that way.
I don’t see the need for this speaker. It works great at 10 degrees.
I find my LS50 to be a little bright when they're pointed directly at you. Somewhere between there and pointed straight into the room is where I prefer them. When I first got them, I was wondering if I made a mistake for my listening preferences. Glad that a little bit of moving the speakers around and adjusting toe eased my concerns.
I do think the R3 is by far the superior speaker for the kinds of music I listen to. For the LS50, having a coaxial midrange / bass driver with a chunk of its surface area taken out for the tweeter is demanding a lot. The poor LS50s just can't keep up with all the content in the music (lots of mids and bass in technical death metal). I mostly listen on planar headphones these days.
Erin, have you ever done Klippel measurements on an open baffle speaker? How would you begin to interpret those compared to a box speaker?
I wonder how this would compare to my current bookshelf Polk LSiM-703 speakers.
what about the r6c meta?
I found a great deal on a pair of used Revel 126Be that are as “cheap” as these KEF R3 Meta’s……but even at that steep a discount maybe I should be getting the KEF anyway?
Excellent review, really liked the comparison to other speakers at the end. Specifically for home theater use, although not necessarily in the same class, I can't seem to think you'll do better than the Arendal 1961 bookshelf especially considering you're buying in multiples and they're sealed. Do you concur? Really looking forward to the 1961 monitor review!
The KEF does a better job with vertical uniformity, if I recall correctly. If you're going to be using the setup in a home theater with subs then it might make more sense to just go with the Arendal and cross them at about 100/120Hz (assuming you can get away with it with your subwoofer position).
@ErinsAudioCorner I've got a couple JTR RS1s so I feel like I could probably get away with 100hz max before running into localization issues.
Looking for a pair of rear speakers for my ht. What is the better choice, r3 or the q550?
Hey KEF America, pretty please with sugar on top send Erin your Ci250RRM, Blade 2 meta and the Reference 3
Yes!!!
Especially the KEF Blade Meta 2
What if the R3 didn't need a subwoofer...? Erin pleeaaase give us the review of the R7 !!! which is based on R3 !!!
Love your content. Subjective and Objective review. You helped me understand "what is a good speaker".
Any review, comment on the new Martin Logan XT series?
Thanks!!
XT B100 review is in the works. :)
Good to see something that you like. I wonder how your methodology would work out if you were testing a non traditional speaker like a Magnepan or even better yet an Ohm Walsh. Most of your testing seems to be geared towards conventional designs. I would be interested in hearing your opinions on some of these non-traditional speaker types.
If you have a pair you'd like to loan me to review shoot me an email.
This is so concrete. I can push all the subjectivity aside, thankyou!
I ended up buying these after this review along with an R6 Meta for a front sound stage for majority HT usage. I absolutely loved them BUT after a very short period of time, one of the R3 Metas woofers started bottoming out during certain scenes, such as in Oppenheimer. I was listening around - 5 MV from reference. I tested both the other R3 and the R6 in the same position (LF speaker) and they never made that sound, so I was left wondering if it was just a crazy one-off that I got a bad speaker or if the R3s just aren't cut out for my use case (which seems nuts - I am in a small 13x12x9 room and was using an 80 hz crossover - I've got an overkill amount of bass already with a Rythmik FV18 so I had no intention of pushing the R3s hard for bass). I ended up returning them all but I have not been able to find anything better and I really miss that R6 as a center - it's the best I've ever heard. Should I buy them again, or just accept they aren't for me and move on to something else, which I don't know what that is. I auditioned Arendal 1723s but they do not have the same richness and vocal clarity as the Metas did. Would really appreciate your opinion on if I should give them another shot, Erin!
Speaking of dual-concentrics, I hope someone could loan you a pair of Fyne Loudspeakers to review, particularly the ones with Magnesium tweeters..
Fantastic review, how do you deal with the center channel if you are using the KEF R3 or R6 Meta? The speaker is right in line!
Kef R3 meta vs wharfedale linton.what is your choice. Which one you will buy.
The same interests me. On a newer video of best speakers disregarding price, he chose the Linton's as one of five. This didn't make it so his preference is visible.
I've spent time with these and did a lot of A/B comparisons. I found these sounded so much better with a quality sub (I felt its needed) but they sounded fairly good. I found them to have a "plasticy" sound to them. It's a slight glare that I don't know how to describe. I listened to a pair of Martin Logan x35 motion bookshelves and found I liked them just about as much for a cheaper price. Both were used with a sub.
If someone likes the kef sound, you should try the Q950s which I believe are around $1800ish. I was not impressed until I tried them paired with a rotel 1592 mk2. An even better pairing was with a Mcintosh.
The R3 are definitely worth a listen and I'm sure the meta is probably a step up
@Michael Tam I hope they solved it with the newer model. That could be the higher frequency Eric is describing he could hear with the older R3.
Good ear. There is so much more to sound than what is currently measured. Glare is a good descriptor. I find it get worse with volume.
@ufarkingicehole
Well, that's not surprising. Erin's measurements indicate that both the Dynamics and Distortion of the R3 Meta would be significantly improved when combining these with a good subwoofer, especially if you have a large-ish room and want to listen at higher volumes at further distances. And of course, nearly any standmount speaker will benefit from adding a subwoofer for the same reasons.
But I get what you are saying about some speakers having a "plasticy" or unnatural sound. I demo'd many pairs of different studio monitors in my home studio before settling on a few small & large monitors for nearfield and midfield listening exactly because of this (I'm a saxophonist & drummer/percussionist).
In the end I was able to find excellent monitors. But many that I demo'd did not sound natural and lifelike to my ears. However, I ultimately designed my own DIY 3-way studio monitors for about 1/4 the cost and sold the ATCs, and couldn't be happier.
@JamesWilliams-gf8gm
To another point that was discussed here, I've measured quite a few loudspeakers, albeit using the more traditional processes without a Klippel NFS, and I've found that loudspeakers that exhibit "Glare", especially when it worsens with increased volume levels, are due to several factors 9 times out of 10...
(Keep the Fletcher-Munson curve in mind here). Usually I've found that "Glare" is experienced when listening to a loudspeaker that has an already slightly lifted upper treble response. This might give the speaker the perception of "better detail & resolution" at normal levels and not be bothersome. But when the volume is increased, our sensitivity to this lifted treble response simply becomes too overbearing.
^So there's that, and/or increased Distortion when the volume level is turned up becomes the cultprit.
Thirdly, YOUR ROOM i.e. listening environment, combined with the directivity of the speaker has a large influence on this, obviously.
Here is just one example I experienced for myself:
Several years ago, I went over to a friend's home studio to do some tracking for a project he was working on. He's a vocalist, guitarist, and keys player, and I was adding some small percussion elements (shaker and tambourine) and saxophone to the mix. I had already tracked the drums for him in my own home studio.
He had been to my home studio and heard my smaller studio monitors previously, and after listening to some of his own mixes on my setup, he decided to buy the same small studio monitors that I was using at the time (Neumann KH 120A).
However, when I listened to the playback of our tracking session in his room and setup, his Neumann's just sounded much more grating and completely "unnatural" compared to what I was used to in my own studio. Granted, I had done quite a bit of selective acoustic treatment in my room, as well as a lot of measurements to shape the response, which cannot be underestimated.
But his room was also moderately "dead" and used a fair amount of acoustic treatment. So the first thing that I checked are the Bass, Low-Mid, and Treble "trim" switches (essentially a high-, mid-, and low-shelf filter) on the back of his monitors. But they were all at the "0" positions, not boosted or emphasized. So that wasn't the main cause of the glare and unnatural sound.
What it ended up being was a myriad of reflections and their resulting comb filtering off of the front surface and side edges of his large 47" HDTV Display monitor, as well as additional reflections between the back of the monitor and the front wall.
Have you ever been in a somewhat "lively" room with tile or hardwood floors and no carpet, then clapped your hands and experienced the "boing" reverberation slap between the floor and ceiling that sound so weird and unnatural? It seemed that something similar was happening here, but at shorter intervals/timing, and at higher frequencies where the effect or cause wasn't immediately discernable.
He was using the large HDTV display as his main display monitor for his DAW, and it was centered above his mixing desk between the two Neumann studio monitors.
I asked him if he had a large and heavy/thick bed blanket or goose down comforter, and he did, so we folded it in two so it was double-layered and simply laid it completely over the front & back of the large HDTV display....
Voilà! Now we had Natural, smooth, LIFELIKE response. :) This also helped to improve the perceived Dynamics. So this is just one example where the room, placement of the speakers, and the loudspeaker's unique directivity attributes can have a huge effect on the perceived sound.
Another thing to mention...and most of us "Golden Ears" hate it when this is brought up...Confirmation or Expectation Bias.
There have been combined sighted+blind listening tests, that when listeners could visually see the loudspeakers that were playing and they had bright, "silvery" aluminum cones, tweeter domes, and white cabinets, they would indicate that these speakers were way too bright and harsh compared to the others that used traditional black cones and natural wood veneer or black cabinets.
However, when an acoustically transparent, but opaque "grill cloth" screen was hiding all of the speakers, and the speakers were switched at random (A/B/X), the listeners then chose those same white/shiny aluminum cone speakers as their favorites by a large margin. SOMEHOW, they magically became Smooth & Balanced, and not harsh or "bright" at all when they could no longer see them. 😜
This is similar to the results that Floyd Toole and Sean Olive documented in their sighted vs blind listening experiements at Harman/JBL. Just search for and read the following:
"seanolive-blogspot-2009-04-09 The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests"
@@bbfoto7248 good read thanks. I think you are correct on glair.
I have two speakers (and others) from the same designer/company right now (JBL 4367 and JBL 590) and the 4367 is 100% free of glair at any volume and the 590 will walk me out of the room if played over 87db with an aggressive bit/glair. the 590 has a slight rise in the treble to my hear and the 4367 has a light roll off. The distortion is probably a lot less on the much better compression driver in the 4367. But I can’t say I really hear or understand what distortion sounds like. Just that the 4367 is incredibly “clean” and dynamic at any volume
I demoed the Kef Reference 3 a few times. It was an ok speaker but not worth the money when compared to other brands at the same cost. It did not sound natural to my ear regardless of doing everything “right”. It just seemed to lack dynamics at all frequency and the highs are pretty average at best. The Revel 328be was better in every way to my ear and for only $1000 more (6%). I bought the 228be and used them with subs for awhile, before moving on to JBL. Kef is kind of a lame duck to me but people seem to love them. I often wonder if they have done direct A/B or maybe they just value different sound aspects than me.
@@JamesWilliams-gf8gm
There are some listening tests that you can download that teach you how to listen for and detect distortion. JBL/Harman also has their "How To Listen" series.
And the old Autosound2000 Test Discs # 1-4 by David Navone and Richard Clark also had a series of music tracks that would introduce consecutively higher percentages of distortion with each track so that you could hear what to listen for and then test your own limits or threshold for hearing it.
It's like a lot of things...once you hear some examples of different types of distortion, you have that "aha moment" and can then instantly recognize the attributes and audibly detect it when you hear it again.
Especially at higher listening levels, distortion is what is most often perceived as "glare" or "harshness" IF the loudspeakers or headphones are otherwise balanced and neutral.
Great review! Would love to hear how these compare to the Martin Logan motion xt b100
How would you compare these to the 400 MKII speakers? Both are around $2000.00
Nice work!
Love the nearfield flexibility of coax platforms.
What a solid performer you've got there. KEF has been iterating/optimizing their coax Kung-fu for a very long time.
Curious; if a sub is warranted, why not get the LS50 and utilize the several hundred dollars on a sub?
I always thought an LS50 platform supported by both mbms, and subs, could be aligned/tuned to be fantastic.
I'm told the coax coherence of the sidewall energy enhances the experience, apparent source width, etc.
Good question for Jack Oclee-Brown, ... or Erin.
Nice work.
Nobody's out there doing what you do ... bringing what you bring.
I would have to do some listening comparisons, and also look at the data. But I believe the R3 has smoother response. The fact that the surround of the coax mid range is more smooth hence at its purpose. Which, I’m sure you already know. I don’t think there is much price difference between the LS 50 meta and this speaker, is there? Maybe about $600? if that’s the case, I think this one still wins out.
Hi Erin.
What do you think about R3 Meta + Nad M10v2 (full Dirac) + 2xRel T7x in 20 sq. meter room? More than enough?
Hi. Many times the bass response is like that if you tune the port lower. Longer port makes it go down earlier but goes deeper(at lower level) depending on the woofer to.
Sigh..these might be what I need.
Erin, thank you for your detailed review and analysis.
Andrew Jones recommends putting coaxial drivers below your ear level with short stands. You are recommended toe out. Is there much of a difference to how you get off axis? Thx
I’m talking about the same thing. Toeing the speaker out toward the room. The left speaker pointed at your left shoulder and the right speaker pointed at your right shoulder, basically.
I was recently tempted to buy R3s because of the end of line pricing at the Kef website. I watched reviews online (all positive) and listened to sound samples at the "E Project" YT channel on headphones. I've listened to many speakers on that channel. This is purely subjective but I sensed a disconnect between the bass & the rest of the music. There is absolutely no evidence of this in your measurements. This may have been due to "E Project" speaker or microphone placement, that strange bass alignment (also visible in other Kef speakers), or my bias trying to find fault with R3s to avoid purchase! Anyway when spending this sort of money a store demo then a home demo is essential.
You could possibly demo the R3s at a best buy as they maybe have some left in stock but getting a house demo may be a little more difficult
Would love to see you review the Ascend Sierra-LX. I'd posit it beats this speaker especially when it comes to bass, and for $700 less per pair.
What would be the ideal room area for the Kef R 3 meta speakers?
KEF site and Crutchfield list Mid Bass is 6.5". Your review says 5.25"? Waiting for my Blue ones to come in.
Agree that original was a little too bright. Good to know the fixed that.
I am interested in learning more about your statement that the R3 is “EQ-able” to remove some of the distorted bass - how would you apply this EQ?. Also, I recall that you reviewed the KEF Reference 1, and wonder how the two compare.
Just get a sub. Or preferably two. No matter what kinda music you listen to or movies you watch you should always use a sub.
Other option is get an R7. One more bass driver, half the load on the driver. More critically to me it will reduce compression. Hopefully it would be reduced with R3 and sub, but no measurement with crossover here.
@@jasonkillsformomy
I concur, with bookshelf speakers subs will always be beneficial.
Thanks for the great content! In the written review you mention the potential importance of using a subwoofer with this speaker. Does that imply high pass filtering the signal going to the speakers?
Preferably High passing and low passing for both the sub and the KEFs at the appropriate frequencies roughly around the 80 to 120Hz region (I personally do 95Hz)
Thanks for the awesome review! Learning a lot from your objective reviews.
What crossover point would you suggest when adding a subwoofer to the R3 Meta’s?
I’d probably go between 70-100Hz. Let the positioning and room determine the final result.
Was considering the JBL L82 or Wharfedale Linton? I enjoy a variety of music beginning to setup some vintage equipment Thorens TD-145, Harmon Kardon receiver. I currently have a modern system with Klipsch speakers and a sub which I really enjoy. I like the size of these speakers especially the sub. Thank You
I'd take the Linton, personally. If you do wind up ordering them, please consider my affiliate link to Crutchfield. It does earn me a small commission but at no additional cost to you. howl.me/ckfhw91LaKD
Thank You