KEF LS60 Wireless Just Announced

[Vacceo]

I think the model that shows the larger potential for improvement is the R8a. Data shows that extension and SPL can be improved quite a bit.

There is no reason to have an atmos satellite so different from the rest of the line.

 

[KMO]

Considering your space, do you think you're missing something? I'm asking because I have listened to the LS50's before, but only in 2.1 configs.

Maybe, but I've never had anything better, so I don't know what I'm missing. Probably for the best.

I'm used to the sub+sat configuration anyway. Previous system I had for ages was the KEF KHT2005 "egg"s, chosen for the same "all speakers the same" reason. It's a clear upgrade from that, keeping the Uni-Q characteristic I like.

(And for me multichannel music is the single biggest improvement possible. All the quibbling over slight improvements to stereo speakers or whatever pales into insignificance compared to playing an actual multichannel mix rather than 2.0. So that's what I optimise for, even if the majority of recordings are not available as multichannel. The ones that are are spectacular.)

 

[killdozzer]

I'm aware some people prefer the LS50 but that's not relevant to the factual difference in output capability. Doesn't always matter but it does exist.

I still think it's because you don't really care for LS50. First of all, some people are against R3 precisely because of its fuller low end. And second, LS50 is far better than Q, but Q also continued with sales. Of course, this is a guessing game, but my guess is only when very close with price and performance will one product take away from the other.

 

[killdozzer]

It isn't, but the LF performance of the LS50s is... not great. They're overall good speakers, they're small and look good and their behavior other than their limited LF output is excellent.

It's just that which is an issue. There is no denying that the R3 does better there.

Comparing 3way to 2way is just the wrong way around. And LF in LS50 can only bad in relative terms. You should offer an example of a significantly better LF performing 6 liter 2 way speaker to say that LF in LS50 is bad. I hope you see what I mean. One might say it's among the best LF 6 liter speaker outhere and one wouldn't be very wrong.

Someone asked me to find him small speakers that dig deep. It's such a narrow pool of options... I think it would be fair to always judge what has been done with a certain model in comparison to what is possible for that design.

If you want a speaker to go low, it has to have some volume. If it doesn't have volume you can try and find some workaround (low sensitivity, good design on the port, a lot of tinkering with the XO). So the real question is who did it better?

 

[Vacceo]

Maybe, but I've never had anything better, so I don't know what I'm missing. Probably for the best.

I'm used to the sub+sat configuration anyway. Previous system I had for ages was the KEF KHT2005 "egg"s, chosen for the same "all speakers the same" reason. It's a clear upgrade from that, keeping the Uni-Q characteristic I like.

(And for me multichannel music is the single biggest improvement possible. All the quibbling over slight improvements to stereo speakers or whatever pales into insignificance compared to playing an actual multichannel mix rather than 2.0. So that's what I optimise for, even if the majority of recordings are not available as multichannel. The ones that are are spectacular.)

From measurements and user experiences, going beyond the quality of the LS50 is perfectly possible, but diminishing returns kick very, very hard. In summary, it's doable but quite expensive.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

6) Also for people that don't have or want to have EQ the LS50 Meta might have a tad smoother tuning and directivity, which can be seen for example when comparing their PIRs:

same as without EQ the tonality of the R3 is quite smoother than the one of the original LS50.

With EQ they all can be made to sound very similar though.

7) The LS50 have the better engineered enclosures from damping and diffraction point of view, how much that is audible can be longly discussed though.

8) The LS50 might be the more collectable loudspeaker for people who are also collecting "legendary" loudspeakers, like for example the LS3/5a, due to their status/hype in the audiophile world.

Am sure the future R3 Meta with even better tuning will give the LS50 Meta an even harder time though.

I dont think the damping is better in ls50..
In fact the R series have layering+dampening+bracing while the ls50 cannot have the layering / bracing from the R series..
The diffraction, I aggre

 

[thewas]

In fact the R series have layering+dampening+bracing while the ls50 cannot have the layering / bracing from the R series..

The LS50 was the first one who had it, let me quote from the R series white paper:

KEF Engineers developed a technique, originally for the LS50 loudspeaker system but applied to all R Series 2018 systems, that combines the two approaches and is more effective than both. The technique, called damped bracing, consists of strategically placed wooden braces that, instead of being rigidly coupled to the panels are joined via a lossy interface. The braces are placed where the panel movement would otherwise be greatest and the lossy layer, like normal damping pads, converts the energy into heat.

 

[KMO]

Plus the LS50 probably has extra structural rigidity due to being smaller, with the curved molded baffle.

 

[Trouble Maker]

They seem to often develop some new methods or technologies on speakers like the LS series or the Ref series. So, if they did something iterative like an already existing Meta driver+2xKC62 without anything new would that actually be kind of... boring?

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

The LS50 was the first one who had it, let me quote from the R series white paper:

KEF Engineers developed a technique, originally for the LS50 loudspeaker system but applied to all R Series 2018 systems, that combines the two approaches and is more effective than both. The technique, called damped bracing, consists of strategically placed wooden braces that, instead of being rigidly coupled to the panels are joined via a lossy interface. The braces are placed where the panel movement would otherwise be greatest and the lossy layer, like normal damping pads, converts the energy into heat.

Yes
But the bracing+layering from the R series is much like the reference line not equal*
That include the uniq in a chamber separate from the woofers


I dont know at which point who is better between the ls50m or the R3 cabinet
In the end, the R3 still have a much heavier cabinet

 

[sifi36]

They seem to often develop some new methods or technologies on speakers like the LS series or the Ref series. So, if they did something iterative like an already existing Meta driver+2xKC62 without anything new would that actually be kind of... boring?

Perhaps that would be the case, though is anyone else doing an all in one floorstander?

Beyond hardware innovations, using the DSP for room correction would be pretty huge. How many home audio firms are doing that? Bang & Olufsen are the only one that come to mind.

 

[thewas]

Yes
But the bracing+layering from the R series is much like the reference line not equal*
That include the uniq in a chamber separate from the woofers

The LS50 has just the Uni-Q and no other drivers, so there is nothing to separate.

I dont know at which point who is better between the ls50m or the R3 cabinet
In the end, the R3 still have a much heavier cabinet

Because it is also quite bigger, by the way the total mass difference is 5,7 Kg and if you consider the additional woofer and crossover components the enclosure mass difference should be only around 2-3 Kg which I wouldn't call much heaver.

Plus the LS50 probably has extra structural rigidity due to being smaller, with the curved molded baffle.

Exactly, with similar engineering usually smaller and/or curved structures have from vibration point of view advantages, here for example the LS50 Meta

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements )

vs the even more expensive series Reference 5 (since Stereophile hasn't measured any loudspeaker from the current R series)

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-reference-5-loudspeaker-measurements)

both on a highest and probably inaudible level though.

 

[ROOSKIE]

The LS50 has just the Uni-Q and no other drivers, so there is nothing to separate.


Because it is also quite bigger, by the way the total mass difference is 5,7 Kg and if you consider the additional woofer and crossover components the enclosure mass difference should be only around 2-3 Kg which I wouldn't call much heaver.


Exactly, with similar engineering usually smaller and/or curved structures have from vibration point of view advantages, here for example the LS50 Meta

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements )

vs the even more expensive series Reference 5 (since Stereophile hasn't measured any loudspeaker from the current R series)

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-reference-5-loudspeaker-measurements)

both on a highest and probably inaudible level though.

I can say R3's had zero audible cabinet resonances during high SPL sweeps.
One of the only speakers not to have any notable cabinet issue*
They are 30lb solid cabs with obvious attention given to them.
Even my M126be's have a very audible can resonance at 250-300hrz. Only apparent in test tones though. In music I love them.(I have not tested the ls50)

*LOTS of junk comes out of the port below 50hrz. Really bad, audible low frequency junk. I think music covers most of it up though they did sound notably cleaner when high passed.

The Geddes study I quoted somewhere in Reference 1 thread makes a very strong case for low diffraction designs. Audible benefits of low diffraction were tested to be present in blind testing.

 

[Trouble Maker]

Beyond hardware innovations, using the DSP for room correction would be pretty huge. How many home audio firms are doing that? Bang & Olufsen are the only one that come to mind.

None of the other KEF actives have any room correction capability built in right? I saw someone in this thread mention it as in 'that would be a cool feature'. Seems unlikely if it's not in any other KEF product at this point in time.

Maybe your talking about this stuff

Introduction to the LS50W Part 2 - The DSP

us.kef.com

To reiterate, I have the LS50W (first one). IMHO that's not room correction. At least not one capable enough to really be worth that much.

 

[sifi36]

None of the other KEF actives have any room correction capability built in right? I saw someone in this thread mention it as in 'that would be a cool feature'. Seems unlikely if it's not in any other KEF product at this point in time.

Maybe your talking about this stuff
View attachment 205845

Introduction to the LS50W Part 2 - The DSP

us.kef.com

To reiterate, I have the LS50W (first one). IMHO that's not room correction. At least not one capable enough to really be worth that much.

To clarify, I meant that in terms of what innovation could mean for the LS60 wireless in lieu of any new hardware technologies. Imagine a full room correction suite with a supplied microphone done by Kef themselves or in partnership with Trinnov or Dirac as the headlining new feature, instead of the usual driver construction or meta material marketing.

The current app options appear pretty rudimentary. How effective would you say they are in your experience?

 

[thewas]

I can say R3's had zero audible cabinet resonances during high SPL sweeps.
One of the only speakers not to have any notable cabinet issue*
They are 30lb solid cabs with obvious attention given to them.
Even my M126be's have a very audible can resonance at 250-300hrz. Only apparent in test tones though. In music I love them.

Yes, all the current KEF cabinets (except of the entry Q series) have some excellent engineering as shown in their white papers and Stereophile measurements.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

The LS50 has just the Uni-Q and no other drivers, so there is nothing to separate.


Because it is also quite bigger, by the way the total mass difference is 5,7 Kg and if you consider the additional woofer and crossover components the enclosure mass difference should be only around 2-3 Kg which I wouldn't call much heaver.


Exactly, with similar engineering usually smaller and/or curved structures have from vibration point of view advantages, here for example the LS50 Meta

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements )

vs the even more expensive series Reference 5 (since Stereophile hasn't measured any loudspeaker from the current R series)

(source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-reference-5-loudspeaker-measurements)

both on a highest and probably inaudible level though.

Exactly my point.
With the LS50 you cant separe the mids and highs uniq. The LS50m have the uniq like the R series from 2011

Maybe if they make a ls50 selaed or the new ls60 lol



A good 6.5" bass driver from Scan weight 1.2KG, the extra components.. Lets put 1.7 kg
R3 = 13.5
Ls50m=7.2KG
6.3 KG. Raw difference~
- 1.7kG

Thats a 4.6KG difference of mass cabinet weight.

To me is a big difference because the ls50m only weight 7.2kg
Thats a big difference in %.

 

[Trouble Maker]

How effective would you say they are in your experience?

I don't have enough experience or expertise to say definitively. I don't have a measurement mic nor have any experience with them. That's on the long list of to-do's.

If forced to say, I'd agree that they seem pretty basic and don't have enough fine tuning capability. I can notice the effect when I turn the knobs. But there aren't enough of them in enough of the right areas. I think they seem great for basic users, but it would be nice if they opened up full PEQ for 'power' users. Honestly it's part of why I haven't gotten a mic yet. What effect could I have anyway with my current setup? I'm just going to notice issues that I can't fix given the LS50Ws (software/EQ) capabilities. It's entirely possible the hardware doesn't have the capability, not enough horsepower, but it seems like a bad place to skimp.

To clarify, I meant that in terms of what innovation could mean for the LS60 wireless in lieu of any new hardware technologies. Imagine a full room correction suite with a supplied microphone done by Kef themselves or in partnership with Trinnov or Dirac as the headlining new feature, instead of the usual driver construction or meta material marketing.

I agree. That would probably be a bigger impact than any tweaks they could do to the speaker itself.

 

[thewas]

A good 6.5" bass driver from Scan weight 1.2KG, the extra components.. Lets put 1.7 kg
R3 = 13.5
Ls50m=7.2KG
6.3 KG. Raw difference~
- 1.7kG

Thats a 4.6KG difference of mass cabinet weight.

To me is a big difference because the ls50m only weight 7.2kg
Thats a big difference in %.

First, the mass I see on the KEF page for the LS50 Meta is 7.8 Kg.

Second, as I wrote above a 3-way crossover needs more components and especially inductors can be quite heavy.

Third, as I wrote you have to consider the size when comparing the masses, the total exterior volume of the LS50 enclosure is approximately 16.7 litres and of the R3 approximately 27.7 litres, so the masses per size 7.8/16.7=0.47 are 13.5/27.7=0.49 are very similar.

 

[Vacceo]

To clarify, I meant that in terms of what innovation could mean for the LS60 wireless in lieu of any new hardware technologies. Imagine a full room correction suite with a supplied microphone done by Kef themselves or in partnership with Trinnov or Dirac as the headlining new feature, instead of the usual driver construction or meta material marketing.

The current app options appear pretty rudimentary. How effective would you say they are in your experience?

Support for a pc-based solution like Arc or Dirac (or several methods!) could make the LS60 (and the 50 wireless II) an incredible proposition.