Quite interesting for me. I like this amp with the METAS, I think it brings a lot out of them and really highlights the differences between the METAS and the R3s. The R3s sound a bit dull and hollow here,

E, maybe it would be useful to do this comparison with the DA9 or another cheaper class D amp ? The STA 9 sounds good with the METAS on your LS50 META Reference series as well. Just a thought.

R3 have a very hifi sound. The ls50 are like a studio monitor and far more neutral with more emphasis on the midrange.

Just got the R3. Meta is also amazing but R3 because it feels more all rounder for movies/gaming/music.

@littlebit8901

Жыл бұрын

I will agree that the R3 are way better for movies/gaming. Metas could compete but you will need a good subwoofer with it and that brings up the cost even more.

After owning Kef's for quite some while and doing some A-B testing at a local audio store... these are tuned differently but I'm also wondering if part of the difference we are hearing in this example is because the LS50 uni-q's are pointed straight at the camera/mic, while the R3's are pointed above the camera/mic. The uni-q's are extremely directional especially at near distances.

@Unicorn-ST

Жыл бұрын

In my experience it isn’t that you say. Uní-Q drivers has much better dispersion and wide than other traditional solutions. I have Several Kef with Uni-Q (C55, iQ3, HTS 2001) and they all works in that way

I like this amp more than the 328 and 368, but i'd have to go back and listen to the 338 to see if I like it more or less than the 388 here. Ok, after some comparisons, I'd have to agree with David that this amp sounds better with the fuller and more forward mids of the Metas, which make it sound sweeter than with the R3s where it sounds too thin. The 338 sounds better than this amp with the R3s, but I'd have to agree that the Yamaha S301 will sound better still. What surprised me is that I just did a quick comparison of the 338, the AXR85, and the Arcam with the R3s, and I actually prefer the 338 and the 85 to the Arcam.The laid back midrange of the Arcam and R3s combined don't complement each other well, and the Arcam does better with a speaker with a more forward midrange, like the R200 or the Metas

Interesting that KEF provides two completely different sound signatures. The R3 sounds like the Elac Uni-Fi 2 UB5.2 (and has very similar drivers) and the Metas sound like nothing else (I like the presentation). Does anyone know of a less expensive speaker that sounds like the Metas?

@JC.LC.

2 жыл бұрын

The kef Ls50 non metas

did you have to push in the shadow flares on your R3's?

I bought the Metas and well I’ve not been as underwhelmed by a speaker as these. Imaging is great but the thin and lifelessness of them compared to a few other speakers I’ve had is shocking. Paired with a quad Vena II amp. Maybe a different amp with a sub out and high pass filter would help.

KEF is interesting, they don't have the so called family sound.......ha. I would like to see a speaker sounding somewhere btw these two..........

by the way what is your source? did you use any dac's? thanks in advanced

@DougMen1

2 жыл бұрын

He used the amp's internal DAC, with the source being files streamed from his Macbook

I prefer the Budget Sony or Yamaha receiver to this.

Any amp, I like the Metas over the R3s.

@DougMen1

2 жыл бұрын

Especially an amp like this or the Arcam, which are thin in the midrange. Pair them with the R3s, which also have a thin midrange, and it's a recipe for disaster, which is why an amp like this or the Arcam are much better with a speaker with a fuller midrange like the Metas or R200s. And a speaker like the R3 needs an amp with a fuller midrange

@zeppzepp1234

2 жыл бұрын

@@DougMen1 To compared with LS50, R3 with the perfect matched amps will still thin in the midrange. That's why synergy concept exists but can't solve any unsatisfied sound. Whether thin midrange is a problem or not, that depends on people's taste of different side of neutral. I don't like either, I like somewhere in the middle btw these two and plus a lot more bass, ha.

@DougMen1

2 жыл бұрын

@@zeppzepp1234 Very valid points, and I can't disagree with any of it. But, I quite like the R3 with the Yamaha S301, and I probably like it more than the Arcam or NAD 388 with the Metas or the Polk R200. With some amps here the R3 doesn't sound too thin to me, and I like the R3 more with those amps than the Meta with any amp, but that's just listening on this KZread channel. I might have a different opinion hearing them in person.

kef R300 for everyday usage, ls50 can become fatiguing but has very good depth but seems R300 have less bass definitely would need subs with r300.

@-MarkWinston-

2 жыл бұрын

The Metas are nowhere near fatiguing. The OG LS50 is, not the Meta.

@lukeizze

Жыл бұрын

KEF R3 is different from R300, which isn't being tested here.

The LS50 Metas are good except for that chuffing sound when playing bass.

NAD + METAs

Metas are way more open

As R3 owner I would prefer Meta. Lol. C298 is better amp.

@streamcnoremorse3323

Жыл бұрын

I mean R3 Meta. ;-)

Meta Sound better even over the internet .

Son ambos muy buenos. Meta tiene un carácter propio. Más lleno el R3.. meta es realmente mejor que ls50??? Casi imperceptible

R3

R3 sounded much superior in Jazz to me..