Doublecheck My Setup (LS50 Meta + Rythmik f12 + Buckeye Amp + Motu Dac)

[BoredErica]

80 Hz might even be a little bit high for the LS50. Your ears will know when you configure them.

Hmm now I'm confused. Is there a reason to crossover lower than that? Avoid issues with localization? For a speaker like LS50 Meta that struggles more with bass I would've thought 80hz is already the conservative estimate. I've seen people on this forum saying they cross over at 100hz or even higher!

You know... If it where me I would buy the R3s. They solve the height problem of getting the tweeter neat ear level, they are substantially heftier and they are a 3 way. $1245 is a good deal. Do they come with a warranty?

No warranty. Gotta pay the full fat $1700 for that.

 

[Doodski]

Hmm now I'm confused. Is there a reason to crossover lower than that? Avoid issues with localization? For a speaker like LS50 Meta that struggles more with bass I would've thought 80hz is already the conservative estimate. I've seen people on this forum saying they cross over at 100hz or even higher!

Yeah, people have different tastes in bass. I like it not too fat because I listen to pretty much anything but classical and I need it compatible for all kinds of music. Additionally in the nearfield they are going to have a pretty good thump even without the subs. Just set up the subs by ear. It'll take a few days to dial them as you listen to different music and you'll know when you get it there. Don't sweat it.

 

[abdo123]

Every Speaker has its own accoustic low-pass roll-off and a great crossover would take that in mind to achieve the perfect integration. there are multiple threads on this forum where you can read about how to figure out the best crossover frequency for your own speaker.

Speaker placement and subwoofer integration for a small living room using MiniDSP SHD + REW

Hey everyone! First, I want to give a big thanks to everyone for helping me get this far-- there's an overwhelming amount of info online for integrating subs into a 2.2 system, both in general knowledge and program interface navigation for testing. The below is what I've learned through the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The KEF LS50 Meta are a great speakers and I would get them over the R3 since the R3 is a tad outdated (although still great) design by now.

Audiolense XO is incredibly more powerful than REW, if you're going to spend time learning then it's better than you learn how to use Audiolense instead.

there is also another program called acourate which the luminary @mitchco has written a book on how to use https://www.amazon.com/Accurate-Sound-Reproduction-Using-DSP-ebook/dp/B01FURPS40

 

[Doodski]

Every Speaker has its own accoustic low-pass roll-off and a great crossover would take that in mind to achieve the perfect integration. there are multiple threads on this forum where you can read about how to figure out the best crossover frequency for your own speaker.

The scientific method is great although in the end the ears are the final arbiter when it comes to transducers. Don't get too empirical with the final setting of the sub crossover point. Over a period of days or weeks depending on how much you listen to music and tweak them you will find they need to be tuned by ear for the final setting. Myself I have setup many subs as I used to retail this stuff before I formally studied electronics and have always found the final setting to be done by ear. Do the mic'ing your system stuff and set the sub and then see how it goes. But don't lock yourself into the settings because the mic/software says so.

 

[abdo123]

The scientific method is great although in the end the ears are the final arbiter when it comes to transducers. Don't get too empirical with the final setting of the sub crossover point. Over a period of days or weeks depending on how much you listen to music and tweak them you will find they need to be tuned by ear for the final setting. Myself I have setup many subs as I used to retail this stuff before I formally studied electronics and have always found the final setting to be done by ear. Do the mic'ing your system stuff and set the sub and then see how it goes. But don't lock yourself into the settings because the mic/software says so.

Why are you assuming that this method was not what also sounded the best to me subjectively?

 

[BoredErica]

Yeah, people have different tastes in bass. I like it not too fat because I listen to pretty much anything but classical and I need it compatible for all kinds of music. Additionally in the nearfield they are going to have a pretty good thump even without the subs. Just set up the subs by ear. It'll take a few days to dial them as you listen to different music and you'll know when you get it there. Don't sweat it.

Every Speaker has its own accoustic low-pass roll-off and a great crossover would take that in mind to achieve the perfect integration. there are multiple threads on this forum where you can read about how to figure out the best crossover frequency for your own speaker.

Speaker placement and subwoofer integration for a small living room using MiniDSP SHD + REW

Hey everyone! First, I want to give a big thanks to everyone for helping me get this far-- there's an overwhelming amount of info online for integrating subs into a 2.2 system, both in general knowledge and program interface navigation for testing. The below is what I've learned through the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

The KEF LS50 Meta are a great speakers and I would get them over the R3 since the R3 is a tad outdated (although still great) design by now.

Audiolense XO is incredibly more powerful than REW, if you're going to spend time learning then it's better than you learn how to use Audiolense instead.

there is also another program called acourate which the luminary @mitchco has written a book on how to use https://www.amazon.com/Accurate-Sound-Reproduction-Using-DSP-ebook/dp/B01FURPS40

Yeah, I'll pay more attention to the crossover frequency. I just read a bunch of posts where everybody seemed to think 80hz was the standard so I thought you just set it and forget it.

I'm curious though. I understand the design of the R3 is older, but what about its performance in terms of measurements do you think could be better? Looking at the measurements of the R3 vs the LS 50 Meta, they seemed similarish (with the R3 even getting slightly higher preference score for far field). I noticed the Meta had bit better vertical directivity but I think that's expected given the design.

My friend thinks Acourate while powerful, requires a lot of manual work and he decided we should both get Audiolense. Easier that way since we're both in the same boat and looking at the same software so we can work together.

REW: Free, basic filters.
Dirac: Has some automation but multi sub integration is lacking?
Audiolense: Pay out the nose for a single license when Dirac offers two! Also has some automation.
Acourate: Can do a lot, but there's a lot to do manually. There might be macros to help.

And so REW does normal EQ, IIR. And the more powerful tools do FIR which is supposed to improve 'impulse response'.

I'll do more required reading, though for today my brain has fried from reading the entire day.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Doodski]

requires a lot of manual work and he decided we should both get Audiolense. Easier that way since we're both in the same boat and looking at the same software so we can work together.

Having a mate to help is a good idea and if you want sophisticated software and plan on not trial testing them then go for it. Whatever floats your boat.

Okidoki. Have a nice night.

 

[abdo123]

Yeah, I'll pay more attention to the crossover frequency. I just read a bunch of posts where everybody seemed to think 80hz was the standard so I thought you just set it and forget it.

I'm curious though. I understand the design of the R3 is older, but what about its performance in terms of measurements do you think could be better? Looking at the measurements of the R3 vs the LS 50 Meta, they seemed similarish (with the R3 even getting slightly higher preference score for far field). I noticed the Meta had bit better vertical directivity but I think that's expected given the design.

in terms of raw performance with a subwoofer they're both very similar like you said, but the Meta has Meta-Material technology which makes sound decay of the tweeter faster (good) and reduces tweeter distortions further (good). you can read more about it here:

Metamaterial Absorption Technology

Metamaterial Absorption Technology Metamaterial Absorption Technology WHAT HI-FI? AWARDS 2020 - 'INNOVATION OF THE YEAR' “KEF has taken an excellent speaker and made it even better with its innovative Metamaterial tech. The LS50 Metas are now the class leader at this level.” - September 2020...

eu.kef.com

 

[BoredErica]

in terms of raw performance with a subwoofer they're both very similar like you said, but the Meta has Meta-Material technology which makes sound decay of the tweeter faster (good) and reduces tweeter distortions further (good). you can read more about it here:

Metamaterial Absorption Technology

Metamaterial Absorption Technology Metamaterial Absorption Technology WHAT HI-FI? AWARDS 2020 - 'INNOVATION OF THE YEAR' “KEF has taken an excellent speaker and made it even better with its innovative Metamaterial tech. The LS50 Metas are now the class leader at this level.” - September 2020...

eu.kef.com

I've glossed over the promotional materials and I can read the white paper in a bit. It just seems weird to me that speaker companies are doing all kinds of new and crazy things for their speaker to improve it, when a relatively basic and mundane 8030c or KH80 already achieves flat response with minimal resonances. I guess it's more complicated here because of the coaxial driver though. But what makes me wonder more are the claims made. Faster sound decay of the tweeter... How would we measure it? If it's important, is Amir supposed to test it? The metamaterial absorbs 99% of unwanted sounds from the rear of the driver... But what does that mean? Less resonances? Flatter FR perhaps?

I suppose the white paper will explain in far more detail. Just makes me wonder, these metrics are not in Amir's speaker testing, so do they matter and Amir's not testing them, or do they not matter because they're already tested indirectly through FR or directivity tests?

Would the R3 and LS50 Meta not sound identical to nearly identical if EQed correctly and crossed over flawlessly with a sub?

Inevitably the more I learn of audio the more confused I get.

Having a mate to help is a good idea and if you want sophisticated software and plan on not trial testing them then go for it. Whatever floats your boat.

Okidoki. Have a nice night.

Have a nice night.