I’ve made no secret of the fact that I get frustrated with subjectivist hardliners—especially those who insist that there’s nothing to be gleaned from the specifications and objective measurements of speakers like KEF’s Q Concerto Meta (US$1399.99, CA$1799.99, £1099, €1198 per pair). And yet . . .
And yet, when comparing the specs of the Q Concerto Meta to the Q3 Meta I reviewed just over a year ago, even I have to admit that I understand the subjectivists’ confusion. The Q Concerto, after all, costs $500 more per pair, yet it’s less sensitive at 85dB (2.83V/1m). It doesn’t offer significantly deeper bass extension, with a ‑6dB point of 36Hz compared with 39Hz, and frequency response rated as 48Hz–20kHz (±3dB) versus 49Hz–20kHz (also ±3dB). This, despite the fact that it’s a three-way design instead of a two-way, with a 6.5″ hybrid aluminum woofer and a Uni-Q array comprising a 4″ aluminum cone and a smaller 0.75″ vented aluminum tweeter with KEF’s maze-like Metamaterial Absorption Technology.
Spoiler warning: pretty much the entirety of the rest of this review is going to be focused on why these specifications alone don’t really tell the whole story about the real-world differences between the two speakers, why the Q Concerto Meta is, in my opinion, a very different speaker, and what objective measurements I suspect might explain why the larger three-way stand-mount speaker performs so differently, despite the seeming similarities on paper.
A few other boilerplate issues to get out of the way first, though. The crossover points for the Q Concerto Meta are necessarily different from the other, smaller Q Series stand-mounts, with the woofer handing off to the mid-frequency driver at 430Hz and the MF handing off to the tweeter at 2.9kHz. Nominal impedance is still specified at 4 ohms, with minimum impedance listed by KEF as 3.2 ohms. According to KEF’s manager of global training, Ben Hagens, the rear-firing bass reflex port is tuned “close to 30Hz, but the system alignment/box tuning is close to 40Hz.”
Again, though: does all of the above tell the whole story? As I think you’ll see, it doesn’t.
Setting up and dialing in the KEF Q Concerto Meta
As I said in my unboxing blog post, one of the things I really love about the pack-in literature that comes with the Q Concerto Meta is that it gives oodles of meaningful setup advice, including such things as positioning relative to side and front walls, as well as when/if to use the included port bungs. The manual gives different recommendations for stereo and surround setups, but in both cases my typical speaker positioning fell within most of the accepted ranges—namely, a seating distance between 1 and 1.2 times the distance between the speakers, and a distance from the back of the speaker to the wall behind it of at least 9″. Any closer than that, and port-bung recommendations start to come into play, but the normal position of my Monoprice 42838 stands left me with around 16″ of space between the back of the speaker and the front wall, so I didn’t bother plugging the ports.
KEF also recommends toe-in of 0 to 15 degrees, and when I had them dialed in to my taste, I was sitting at around 16 degrees, which is close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades. The setup advice I was most worried about, though, was the recommended stand height. My stands are 32″ tall, whereas KEF recommends a height of 18″ to 24″, although the literature does give an IKEA-style check-marked go-ahead for bookshelf placement that, visually at least, looks a good bit higher.
At any rate, that was one of the first things I was listening for—vertical dispersion issues caused by the higher-than-suggested height of the speaker, despite the fact that the vertical dispersion of the Q3 Meta was so good that I should have known better than to be concerned.
My other primary concern was the Q Concerto Meta’s ability to rock the hell out at paint-peeling SPLs, which the Q3 struggled with at times with certain music.
For the duration of my testing, I relied on my reference NAD C 3050 BluOS‑D integrated amplifier, connected to the KEFs with a pair of pre-terminated SVS SoundPath Ultra speaker cables. I occasionally added my SVS PB‑1000 Pro sub to the mix. I did spend a day or so testing out how well the Q Concerto Meta responded to Dirac room correction, both band-limited and full-range, but the bulk of my listening was done sans DSP.
How does the Q Concerto Meta perform?
Since I’ve already reviewed the Q3 Meta, and expect many of my readers to write me asking whether the Q Concerto Meta is a worthwhile upgrade, I decided to rely on mostly the same music for my evaluation, starting with “Change,” the first track from King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard’s album Changes (24‑bit/48kHz FLAC, KGLW / Qobuz). I don’t, of course, still have the Q3 Metas for direct comparison, but I do have my exhaustive listening notes. I noted that I found the tonality and attack of the hi‑hats, vocals, and instrumentation spot-on with average SPLs of 80dB and peaks around 89dB.
What stood out as different about the Q Concerto Meta to me was that even with the volume knob cranked to the point of delivering 108.7dB peaks—at which point my ears were shaking their proverbial heads and asking for a break—the system still sounded well-balanced, tonally spot-on, and effortless.
What’s more, while I thought the vertical dispersion characteristics of the Q3 Meta were fantastic, the Q Concerto Meta struck me as more consistent, to the point where I really had to stand to my full height (I’m just over 6′2″) to really pick up on what I would consider to be noteworthy tonal colorations. The voice of the speaker changed a bit more when I sat on the floor, granted, so long story short, although I’m sure KEF has reasons for recommending a stand height of 18″ to 24″, something as high as 32″ also works just fine, so long as you’re not a floor-sitter. In fact, the Monoprice stands seemed to put the acoustic center of the speakers pretty close to ear height for me, but the dispersion of the speaker is such that identifying the acoustic center just by moving your head around and up and down isn’t exactly easy work.
Next up was Björk’s “Hyperballad” (Post, 16/44.1 FLAC, Atlantic / Qobuz), with its descending D#, D, C bass line and distinctive mix of harmonics and subharmonics extending all the way down to ~32.7Hz, which the Q Concerto Meta doesn’t claim to be able to reach any more than does the Q3 Meta. Looking at the specs on paper, you’d expect the two models to be quite similar in terms of bass, and yet the Q Concerto Meta sounded more even from note to note. And more importantly, there didn’t seem to be the same sweet spot in terms of SPLs. At both much quieter and much louder listening levels, the Q Concerto Meta maintained the dynamics and punch of the bass and percussion much better to my ears. And as with the Q3, there was no audible chuffing worth speaking of.
As I’ve said any number of times and will repeat every time I use it as a reference track: George Michael’s “Freedom! ’90” (Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, 24/44.1 FLAC, Sony Music CG / Qobuz) doesn’t in any way resemble an audiophile recording. It just sort of barely has almost enough bass and can sound brittle when played at eff‑you loudness levels, even on very capable speakers. As was the case with the Q3 Meta, the Q Concerto Meta definitely benefited from the addition of a sub with this track—and indeed, it was the only track in all my listening that really needed a sub, despite the lack of very deep bass in the mix.
The difference with this speaker was that I could play the song at any reasonable listening level without hearing the sizzle and harshness I heard in Michael’s voice through the Q3 Meta, nor the minor inconsistencies in note-to-note amplitude. Overall, the midrange was even better behaved.
In pretty much every other respect, the performance of the Q Concerto Meta is remarkably similar to that of the Q3 Meta. Horizontal dispersion is exceptional. The speakers don’t seem to interact with the room as much above the transition frequency as most speakers this size do. Soundstaging and imaging are absolutely delightful. There’s just nothing that I could imagine anyone complaining about when it comes to the sound of this speaker. Seriously. I think most people would prefer it to most speakers in its price class in a blind listening test.
So what’s going on with the discrepancies between the Q3 Meta and the Q Concerto Meta, aside from the obvious differences in topology and cabinet size? I’m guessing if we measure these ones, what we’ll find is that the deviation from linearity—that chart that’s rarely well explained or well understood in our suite of measurements from the NRC—will be a lot flatter than that of the Q3 Meta. I was not hearing as much woofer compression at louder listening levels. To be honest, I was not really hearing any to speak of. And for me, that’s an important consideration, given that I occasionally like to listen louder than I should.
What other speakers might you consider in this class?
If I were looking to spend about this much money on a bookshelf speaker right now, there’s really only one other offering I’d have on my short list. The Monitor Audio Silver 50 7G (US$1249/pair) is the two-way bookshelf sibling of the Silver 300 7G tower I reviewed and adored nearly four years ago (my how time flies!), and which still lives rent-free in my head all these years later. The Silver 50 would, of course, require a sub for me, since it doesn’t give you much below 80Hz. But I’m a big proponent of 2.1-channel setups anyway, so that wouldn’t be a dealbreaker by any stretch.
TL;DR: Is the KEF Q Concerto Meta worth the money?
The question of whether or not the KEF Q Concerto Meta is a good buy is really two parallel questions in this case, since I’ve also reviewed the Q3 Meta. Firstly: is the Q Concerto Meta a good deal purely on its own terms? Absolutely. This isn’t a matter of preference. It’s not a matter of taste. It’s not a matter of what I personally look for in a loudspeaker. This is simply an objectively good product that I think anyone would love, assuming you don’t need a significantly more efficient or louder speaker, and also assuming you have a competent solid-state amp.
But is it a better value than the Q3 Meta? I think it is. And I say that because, even accounting for the discrepancy in price, the smaller two-way has some limitations that may or may not be relevant to your needs and environment.
For me, though, even if I had a smaller room and didn’t want to play the system as loudly as the Q Concerto Meta is capable of playing, I’d still say it’s worth the extra $500 per pair. It’s more versatile, more capable, more neutral, and more scalable as your system evolves. Or even if your system doesn’t evolve. It’s as fine a speaker as I’ve heard at this price point, and it requires no apologies—except perhaps for its imposing size.
True, it may be a good bit more expensive than many excellent speakers I’ve reviewed. But the Q Concerto Meta still delivers more bang for the buck, in my opinion, than the bulk of its competition. It’s objectively one of the finest speakers I’ve auditioned in ages.
. . . Dennis Burger
dennisb@soundstagenetwork.com
Associated Equipment
- Integrated amp: NAD C 3050 BluOS-D
- Subwoofer: SVS PB‑1000 Pro
- Sources: Custom-built PC running Pop!_OS with Cosmic Desktop 1.0.3; iPhone 16 Pro Max; U-Turn Orbit Theory turntable
- Speaker cables: SVS SoundPath Ultra
- Power conditioner: SurgeX XR115
KEF Q Concerto Meta loudspeaker
Price: US$1399.99, CA$1799.99, £1099, €1198 per pair
Warranty: Five years, parts and labor
KEF
GP Acoustics (UK) Ltd.
Eccleston Road, Tovil
Maidstone, Kent
England ME15 6QP
UK
Phone: +44 (0)1622-672261
Website: www.kef.com
North America:
KEF
GP Acoustics (US) Ltd.
10 Timber Lane
Marlboro, NJ 07746
USA
Phone: (732) 683-2356
Website: www.kef.com/us
