What @bill_k says. The Reference line is expensive, but if you like the KEF sound they are tops.
23 responses Add your response
@audiocanada - Have to honestly report that the Reference Meta models are at a completely different level of performance when compared to the R Metas. When you compare them side by side the difference in coherence, refinement and realism is quite startling. |
these have been out a while now very little online by way of user reviews/pro reviews might these be in the same league as the reference 1 metas? in my area, the r11's are sold at discount, full pop on the references, reference 1's are exactly twice the price here with stands, handmade in UK looking at both
|
I listened to these side by side to B&W 702 s3 as well as the ML x100 mentioned in this review. Between these 3 the KEFs had the most neutral cleanest sound. The bass was not as strong as the B&W or the ML which had the strongest bass but it was the cleanest, just as described in the review . The ML bass sounded like resonance and standing wave pressure in some particular songs. They seemed to also amplify HF like vocals a bit. KEFs were just neutral as the instruments were playing right there in the room. I like them better than the 702 s3 which had more bass and also clean bass but the HF was too bright for me. I’d say these speakers are priced fairly. Their finish also tops the other two. I certainly have the same impression as the reviewer that the KEFs had the cleanest most neutral sound to my ear with no coloring whatsoever so if that’s what you like these are your speakers
|
Concept-wise, I like Kef for some good design decisions; concentric tweet/mid (Uni-Q), force-cancelling woofer arrangement (Uni-Core), and non-flat cabinets (Muon, Blade, Meta). While these attributes set the stage for good performance, downsides are; metal tweeters (don't sound good to me), low perfomance/$ (questionable value), and my impression is that being a mass-market producer - cabinets/crossovers/drivers/materials are the product of them spending more on finding ways to improve profit margin as they do finding ways to improve performance. I put Kef in the category of Bose - excellent engineering capability mis-focused on profit and an even better marketing department. Can't fault Kef for this, they exist to make & sell speakers for profit - just like any other speaker company. I'd say they're doing a fantastic job bringing these products to market. Specifically, their active speakers are a very attractive 'lifestyle' option for most people. |
I think a lot of it has to do with: 1. Too many cooks in the kitchen and voices of the final outcome. Nitpicking every cost saving measure and profit maximizing they can. 2. Dealer markup is number one by far. Which is totally justified but is what it is. 3. Just an overall abundance of money people involved that don’t give 2 shots about the final product as long as it hits a demographic and a sales target. I think it’s less on the mid to super high end stuff. But basically trying to give you the least amount possible for the least amount of outlay.
I know a lot of peeps aren’t but I’m personally a big Tekton fan. The Double Impacts for example you would be hard pressed to diy for what they are charging for them. Salk, Ascend and some others same thing to a lessor degree. As I’m listening to my mid grade Focals…. Lol Most people would think spending a grand on speakers is ridiculous. |
Measurements on the R Series Meta 😎😲 https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r-meta-series-trlease.41420/ All New Kef Reference LITE R11 META's ! 😈 😲 |
