NEWS: KEF launches new-generation R Series of speakers & comments

Shame there arent any dipoles in the range. I know they arent recomended or Atmos, but are still a great option for rears.
 
The link sent me to the Reference series and gave me a shock at the prices, nothing major here apart from the price hike or have I missed something?
 
3 way and not a woofer in sight! :(
 
The link sent me to the Reference series and gave me a shock at the prices, nothing major here apart from the price hike or have I missed something?

Minor things in the introduction of the metamaterials in the new tweeters. In the LS50M & new Reference range they seem to have made a small improvement.

The R series was definitely a sweet spot in the range IMO so a nice upgrade, but in practice I doubt very much it will make a significant audible impact under most conditions.

Good time to get a nice deal on the outgoing stock - the R3 in particular is a cracking bargain and available at some retailers for half price while stocks last.
 
Some random thoughts:
  • All of the R Metas are 4 Ohms
  • Love the R6c center for those looking for a R series center
  • I finally found a reason to upgrade my Q50a height speakers (to the R8 Meta)
  • Love the new color, but it's a shame not all speakers are available in it
 
So not the new R Series as was quoted for the 2018 R Series.
I take it the cabinets are the same with the same size drivers.
The addition of the R6C is interesting after Kef were quoted to say the R2C was enough.
So more of a midlife update.
Not heard one of the speakers with the Meta material but would like too
I have given up hoping for a dipole speaker for surround duties in a typical small British room.
I really enjoy my R3’s and R2C but don’t see the reason to change at the moment at least
 
So not the new R Series as was quoted for the 2018 R Series.
I take it the cabinets are the same with the same size drivers.
The addition of the R6C is interesting after Kef were quoted to say the R2C was enough.
So more of a midlife update.
Not heard one of the speakers with the Meta material but would like too
I have given up hoping for a dipole speaker for surround duties in a typical small British room.
I really enjoy my R3’s and R2C but don’t see the reason to change at the moment at least
I have the R3's but an Arendal center. I have been looking to get the R2C but was waiting for a possible refresh and price adjustment.

Lots of reviews for the R2C are middling saying it can lack both bass and clarity. I haven't listened to the speaker yet, but did have the Q250 and Q650 briefly and they seemed very boomy (in a good way). My small Arendal is not boomy.

Point is, how do you like the R2c?
 
I have the R3's but an Arendal center. I have been looking to get the R2C but was waiting for a possible refresh and price adjustment.

Lots of reviews for the R2C are middling saying it can lack both bass and clarity. I haven't listened to the speaker yet, but did have the Q250 and Q650 briefly and they seemed very boomy (in a good way). My small Arendal is not boomy.

Point is, how do you like the R2c?

The R2c is a great center, and I expect the R6c Meta to be fantastic. Or get a Reference 2c (used are around the price of the R6c).
 
I have the R3's but an Arendal center. I have been looking to get the R2C but was waiting for a possible refresh and price adjustment.

Lots of reviews for the R2C are middling saying it can lack both bass and clarity. I haven't listened to the speaker yet, but did have the Q250 and Q650 briefly and they seemed very boomy (in a good way). My small Arendal is not boomy.

Point is, how do you like the R2c?
I like my R2c, huge improvement over my last centre (QA 3090c). Nice clarity and plenty of grunt. If I were you I would be snapping up the outgoing model for about half the price of the new R2c.

I would like to hear the new R6c but my R2 is plenty enough for my room.
 
I have the R3's but an Arendal center. I have been looking to get the R2C but was waiting for a possible refresh and price adjustment.

Lots of reviews for the R2C are middling saying it can lack both bass and clarity. I haven't listened to the speaker yet, but did have the Q250 and Q650 briefly and they seemed very boomy (in a good way). My small Arendal is not boomy.

Point is, how do you like the R2c?
R2C is excellent, very good for dialogue and the whole front stage with a pair of R’s for L/R is very cohesive.
I get that it must ‘lack’ bass just on the very basis that it is a sealed centre with a couple of 5.25“ drivers - but despite this, YPAO and XT32 have both detected mine in my room as being a large full range speaker. So much like the R5’s that also detect as full range large speakers - they are surprisingly capable drivers in them.
I know on the KEF groups people have bleated on for ever and a day about wanting an R6C, but honestly I don’t see the point tbh, not unless going in an especially large room anyway. As both can play ref levels in SPL, and realistically despite what room correction picks up, you’ll probably whack the crossover to 80hz after anyway.

Overall I think this series is barely more than a face-lift revision really, I guess the fact they share the main naming convention is testimony to that. The price increases therefore to my eyes look a little on the hefty side. I suppose you could argue the R series were always great value before (which I actually think they were), but even so it must now surely put them up against some serious other brands and speakers now.

Myself I’ll wait until the 4th gen R series are out in 5 years time, or find some used Ref 1 meta! Really zero point upgrading from the current models for what will undoubtedly be an incremental upgrade (based on the Ref and LS50 to meta model improvements, which generally are reviewed as being pretty minor).
 
R2C is excellent, very good for dialogue and the whole front stage with a pair of R’s for L/R is very cohesive.
I get that it must ‘lack’ bass just on the very basis that it is a sealed centre with a couple of 5.25“ drivers - but despite this, YPAO and XT32 have both detected mine in my room as being a large full range speaker. So much like the R5’s that also detect as full range large speakers - they are surprisingly capable drivers in them.
I know on the KEF groups people have bleated on for ever and a day about wanting an R6C, but honestly I don’t see the point tbh, not unless going in an especially large room anyway. As both can play ref levels in SPL, and realistically despite what room correction picks up, you’ll probably whack the crossover to 80hz after anyway.

Overall I think this series is barely more than a face-lift revision really, I guess the fact they share the main naming convention is testimony to that. The price increases therefore to my eyes look a little on the hefty side. I suppose you could argue the R series were always great value before (which I actually think they were), but even so it must now surely put them up against some serious other brands and speakers now.

Myself I’ll wait until the 4th gen R series are out in 5 years time, or find some used Ref 1 meta! Really zero point upgrading from the current models for what will undoubtedly be an incremental upgrade (based on the Ref and LS50 to meta model improvements, which generally are reviewed as being pretty minor).

If you cross at 80Hz, you'll benefit between 80-500Hz with the bigger drivers for mid-bass. There's a lot of information there.

Right now the sweet spot is the non-Meta Reference Series if you ask me.
 
R2C is excellent, very good for dialogue and the whole front stage with a pair of R’s for L/R is very cohesive.
I get that it must ‘lack’ bass just on the very basis that it is a sealed centre with a couple of 5.25“ drivers - but despite this, YPAO and XT32 have both detected mine in my room as being a large full range speaker. So much like the R5’s that also detect as full range large speakers - they are surprisingly capable drivers in them.
I know on the KEF groups people have bleated on for ever and a day about wanting an R6C, but honestly I don’t see the point tbh, not unless going in an especially large room anyway. As both can play ref levels in SPL, and realistically despite what room correction picks up, you’ll probably whack the crossover to 80hz after anyway.

Overall I think this series is barely more than a face-lift revision really, I guess the fact they share the main naming convention is testimony to that. The price increases therefore to my eyes look a little on the hefty side. I suppose you could argue the R series were always great value before (which I actually think they were), but even so it must now surely put them up against some serious other brands and speakers now.

Myself I’ll wait until the 4th gen R series are out in 5 years time, or find some used Ref 1 meta! Really zero point upgrading from the current models for what will undoubtedly be an incremental upgrade (based on the Ref and LS50 to meta model improvements, which generally are reviewed as being pretty minor).
Nice write up. I'll have to keep an eye out for deals on the R2C in white. Best I've seen is Peter Tyson which would probably be around $850 USD after reshipping fees, but they don't stock white.
 
If you cross at 80Hz, you'll benefit between 80-500Hz with the bigger drivers for mid-bass. There's a lot of information there.

Right now the sweet spot is the non-Meta Reference Series if you ask me.
But in an anechoic chamber they will both measure pretty damn flat in that region, and certainly so after room correction is run. They both play to almost the same peak SPL (110dB vs 111dB), whilst they both also sport all but identical distortion figures too of <0.5% 93hz-20kz/95hz-20k (covering that range 80-500hz range quoted).
So unless you are using them in a big space and big volume, that won’t actually translate to anything meaningful - because each will be played in it’s comfort zone. The smaller drivers are not missing any information in that range and are more than capable of playing those frequencies at very loud volumes and very low distortion, as per the specs.

I’m not arguing that the R6C won’t have its place in certain scenarios, which is as alluded to large rooms and/or ref level listeners. But for anyone else I don’t think the differences will materialise to much at all.
 
Still no direct replacement for the older R100. Think that's a mistake given the average size of UK rooms as they make for the perfect surrounds.
 
I'm sure there was too much overlap between the LS50 and the R100 to make it worth having both.
 
I'm sure there was too much overlap between the LS50 and the R100 to make it worth having both.
Possibly, however I wonder how many people turn to the Q150 as it's melds better with the R range than the LS50s would. If I remember correctly the original LS50s were about to be launched when I bought my R100s at a not unsubstantial £600. Ran them as fronts for about six months until the I wore the missus down and was allowed to buy R300s. With a bit of luck they'll outlast me.
 
Those are lovely lifestyle photos ;) (one of my close friends took them)

I am actually curious to hear some R series speakers though one day, always heard great things about the old R3.
 
But in an anechoic chamber they will both measure pretty damn flat in that region, and certainly so after room correction is run. They both play to almost the same peak SPL (110dB vs 111dB), whilst they both also sport all but identical distortion figures too of <0.5% 93hz-20kz/95hz-20k (covering that range 80-500hz range quoted).
So unless you are using them in a big space and big volume, that won’t actually translate to anything meaningful - because each will be played in it’s comfort zone. The smaller drivers are not missing any information in that range and are more than capable of playing those frequencies at very loud volumes and very low distortion, as per the specs.

I’m not arguing that the R6C won’t have its place in certain scenarios, which is as alluded to large rooms and/or ref level listeners. But for anyone else I don’t think the differences will materialise to much at all.

Definitely valid points, but in my humble opinion those 5.25" drivers are simple too small to produce any significant LF or even relevant MF. The R2c and R5 should be scrapped altogether by KEF if you ask me, but of course I'm not a marketing expert.
 
Definitely valid points, but in my humble opinion those 5.25" drivers are simple too small to produce any significant LF or even relevant MF. The R2c and R5 should be scrapped altogether by KEF if you ask me, but of course I'm not a marketing expert.
Laughable.
 
Obviously there are limits to how much air a small driver can move, but it's simply not true to say that they cannot produce low and medium frequencies.

Using multiple small drivers instead of fewer larger drivers is a sensible design choice under many scenarios.

I mean why not apply the same logic to the 6.5" units in your speakers too? Surely they are too small to produce any meaningful bass too? For acceptable bass one requires a 10" driver at a minimum - no?
 
I thought our conversation was a bit more substantial, but I guess I was mistaken. Have a nice day.
Well I took it to heart more than I perhaps should, given I own R2C and R5 that you think should be 'scrapped'. But getting in to it properly it is a somewhat laughable statement really, as a pair of 5.25" high quality drivers can of course generate "relevant" MF and LF.
In surface area terms the dual 5.25" drivers are about the same as a single 7.5" driver - that's pretty fair really. Also remember they're true 3-way designs so those dual 5.25" drivers don't have to worry about doing mid-band frequencies, also the mains in the R series line up are bass reflex designs using ports to generate the real low stuff.

As mentioned in the prior post the max SPL and distortion figures on any of the R series are all excellent, the anechoic responses are too (R2C and R5 included in that). I've also got the years of using them and the REW sweeps to prove it when it comes to practical application.
I didn't find bass in any way lacking compared to the MA Silver 300's or 702 S2's I also auditioned them against, of which the S2 has 3x 6.5" drivers..... But the caveat is always pick speakers suitable for the application. My room's pretty small and generates a decent amount low end gain as a result, so anything more (i.e R7 and R11) would just effectively be wasted capability - as a result KEF produce a range of speakers to suit, so no they shouldn't be scrapped.

If I had my time again, I'd likely get R3's - the ability to easily change the height via stands I think would be useful (my sofa is too tall really for most floorstanders, need to swap the legs to shorter ones I think), plus the extra capability of the R5's or above isn't needed for my situation, even less so when leveraging subs. But to me floorstanders look smarter, so R5 are a very valid option when you have to balance the whole mixing pot of needs and wants.
 
Well I took it to heart more than I perhaps should, given I own R2C and R5 that you think should be 'scrapped'. But getting in to it properly it is a somewhat laughable statement really, as a pair of 5.25" high quality drivers can of course generate "relevant" MF and LF.
In surface area terms the dual 5.25" drivers are about the same as a single 7.5" driver - that's pretty fair really. Also remember they're true 3-way designs so those dual 5.25" drivers don't have to worry about doing mid-band frequencies, also the mains in the R series line up are bass reflex designs using ports to generate the real low stuff.

As mentioned in the prior post the max SPL and distortion figures on any of the R series are all excellent, the anechoic responses are too (R2C and R5 included in that). I've also got the years of using them and the REW sweeps to prove it when it comes to practical application.
I didn't find bass in any way lacking compared to the MA Silver 300's or 702 S2's I also auditioned them against, of which the S2 has 3x 6.5" drivers..... But the caveat is always pick speakers suitable for the application. My room's pretty small and generates a decent amount low end gain as a result, so anything more (i.e R7 and R11) would just effectively be wasted capability - as a result KEF produce a range of speakers to suit, so no they shouldn't be scrapped.

If I had my time again, I'd likely get R3's - the ability to easily change the height via stands I think would be useful (my sofa is too tall really for most floorstanders, need to swap the legs to shorter ones I think), plus the extra capability of the R5's or above isn't needed for my situation, even less so when leveraging subs. But to me floorstanders look smarter, so R5 are a very valid option when you have to balance the whole mixing pot of needs and wants.

I think the R5 + subs are a great option. R3 on stands take up the same space and cost almost as much so I'd prefer the R5. In some brands perhaps the larger model might suffer, but KEF cabinet design is first rate.

Actually - the lifestyle picture where they use the R6 in an upright position is pretty cool too, nice little monitor style speakers - and at a good price and they use the 6.5" drivers too - similar to the R7 but with a smaller box - just to keep @exm happy :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom