I too had a similar experience at Magnolia/BB only I didn't think the KEF sounded bad just that B&W and KEF have totally different sound signatures. The B&W put a spotlight on the treble, making them sound very open, detailed, and sparkly. The KEF put a spotlight on the midrange making instruments and vocals sound bigger and more full. Upper register details where less up front but still there. I was there to listen to KEF so I started with those and found them to be very balanced and detailed. When we switched to B&W they sounded very bright by comparison. They level of apparent detail was cool and they sounded very good but compared to KEF were less coherent, lacked midrange presence and were too bright for me. As others have noted, the set up left a lot to be desired. Speakers were placed on a long high shelf, placing the speakers way too high, very wide, and too close to the wall. I was actually surprised by how good everything sounded considering the compromised set up. KEF R3 Meta sounded HUGE in that room and yes, veiled compared to the BW.
B&W 705s3 vs Kef Meta R3
I was at Magnolia the other day and out of curiosity, I asked the salesman to play these 2 speakers back to back. I really couldn't believe how muffled the Metas were compared to the Bowers. I then compared other bigger models of each and heard the same sound signature. What was the problem here? I've owned a ton of different speakers and never heard quite a contrast. I should add that I am biased towards Kef.
Has anyone else out there compared these 2 lines in a real world setting?