Genelec 8030c vs LS50 Meta/Wireless

[FrantzM]

Well I understood it a completely different way.

The R3 reviewed by Amir measured well (if anything a little treble hot which is safely correctable via EQ/DSP).
And the SVS SB1000/SB2000 being a decent price/performance subwoofer.
I thought such a combination was quite a natural preference for ASR members.

I think KEF makes enough money from mainstream customers.
I would support and pick the Genelec over any KEF, to me it’s the difference between something serious and something on display in a store.

And you were right. the "we" is a lot about "me" and my own biases and prejudices.

 

[mononoaware]

And you were right. the "we" is a lot about "me" and my own biases and prejudices.

Everyone has their own biases and prejudices, it’s only natural. . .

But maybe objectivist’s biases are more based on common factors such as “price”, “market”, “performance” rather than flowery pleasure feelings and gorgeous jewellery resembling appearance.

 

[mononoaware]

much heralded LS50.

Much falsely heralded in my opinion.

When you take everything away you are left with a metal dome, metal cone, small mid-woofer diameter bass-reflex coaxial speaker called the LS50.
Which KEF claims is tuned to a certain target (the vintage LS3/5A used by BBC studios etc etc).

I think sound wise it would probably appeal to oldies who are familiar with the LS3/5A and perceive it as a “modern/emphasised” evolution of the old vintage speaker.

To be fair it seems KEF has made improvements with the LS50 Meta, but how much can you improve without changing its design?
I would say minor improvements but it will always resemble the original.

For me the 1st red flag - the marketing
“The World's First Speakers with Metamaterial”/“Every spot is the sweet spot”
2nd red flag - the colors they chose. . .

But seriously it is clear KEF is targeting a consumer “lifestyle” audience, at least with their lower priced models.

 

[FrantzM]

Everyone has their own biases and prejudices, it’s only natural. . .

But maybe objectivist’s biases are more based on common factors such as “price”, “market”, “performance” rather than flowery pleasure feelings and gorgeous jewellery resembling appearance.

You're too kind.

 

[kniff]

I had KEF LS50s and was dissapointed, probably because i prefer mid / bass-ier speakers. I had these previously: http://usa.xtz.se/dsp/s-800-dsp-black?stat=1

I then sold the LS50s and bought XTZ Spirit 4s (softdome / waveguide tweeter, 6.5" mid/bass) that i enjoy so much more! I only paid 300€ for the pair.

My point: I've been in the same situation as you looking for upgrades, and i'm now awaiting a pair of Revel Concerta2 M16s. I think they are well worth looking at in this price bracket.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m16-speaker-review.11884/

I paid 850€ incl tax+shipping from UK to Sweden (mileage may vary..)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144025912536?hash=item21889d04d8:g:w14AAOSwNzlgjRvk

 

[mononoaware]

I had KEF LS50s and was dissapointed, probably because i prefer mid / bass-ier speakers. I had these previously: http://usa.xtz.se/dsp/s-800-dsp-black?stat=1

I then sold the LS50s and bought XTZ Spirit 4s (softdome / waveguide tweeter, 6.5" mid/bass) that i enjoy so much more! I only paid 300€ for the pair.

My point: I've been in the same situation as you looking for upgrades, and i'm now awaiting a pair of Revel Concerta2 M16s. I think they are well worth looking at in this price bracket.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m16-speaker-review.11884/

I paid 850€ incl tax+shipping from UK to Sweden (mileage may vary..)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/144025912536?hash=item21889d04d8:g:w14AAOSwNzlgjRvk

Could you please explain to the audience how you arrived at/what influenced you into purchasing the LS50’s?

(I am not being mean here I am genuinely curious)

 

[kniff]

Could you please explain to the audience how you arrived at/what influenced you into purchasing the LS50’s?

(I am not being mean here I am genuinely curious)

No problem! (FYI this was 3-4 years ago, before i discovered ASR)

In no particular order:

• Looks
• Supposed to work well in near-field (my use-case was desktop audio)
• General consensus / hype from youtubers and reviews, reddit
• Price, i paid 650€ for used but an "as new" pair back when MSRP was minimum €1000

I got my money back when i sold them (extremely easy to sell, everybody seemed to want them! This was before Wireless, Meta, LSX..)

 

[NeoZs99]

To my understanding SB1000/SB2000 both have fixed high-pass.
The SB2000 Pro model replaced all the knobs with a bunch of buttons, but gained Smart-phone app tuning of DSP.

But yes it would good for OP to confirm what model they have and the features of that model before making a purchase.

Edit: I was wrong, SB1000/2000 have fixed value (80hz?) high-pass.

Thank you all for your response and opinions firstly. You're being of great help. The obvious thing to do was to audition both, but atm I'm stuck in Mauritius.
The original SB1000 high pass value is not fixed and I have been using them since 2016 I believe. I'm still leaning towards the 8030c, and obviously if I had the budget I'd go for the superior 8xx1 series. The wireless KEF are going to be like a thousand dollars more expensive and I've been reading about some dodgy QC issues too. I would have also needed an amp for the Metas.

The 8340a could also have been an option, but I don't think it has been reviewed on asr.

 

[napilopez]

Much falsely heralded in my opinion.

When you take everything away you are left with a metal dome, metal cone, small mid-woofer diameter bass-reflex coaxial speaker called the LS50.
Which KEF claims is tuned to a certain target (the vintage LS3/5A used by BBC studios etc etc).

I think sound wise it would probably appeal to oldies who are familiar with the LS3/5A and perceive it as a “modern/emphasised” evolution of the old vintage speaker.

To be fair it seems KEF has made improvements with the LS50 Meta, but how much can you improve without changing its design?
I would say minor improvements but it will always resemble the original.

For me the 1st red flag - the marketing
“The World's First Speakers with Metamaterial”/“Every spot is the sweet spot”
2nd red flag - the colors they chose. . .

But seriously it is clear KEF is targeting a consumer “lifestyle” audience, at least with their lower priced models.

No problem! (FYI this was 3-4 years ago, before i discovered ASR)

In no particular order:

• Looks
• Supposed to work well in near-field (my use-case was desktop audio)
• General consensus / hype from youtubers and reviews, reddit
• Price, i paid 650€ for used but an "as new" pair back when MSRP was minimum €1000

I got my money back when i sold them (extremely easy to sell, everybody seemed to want them! This was before Wireless, Meta, LSX..)

The LS50 Meta has very significant performance improvements over the LS50. Metamaterial fanciness aside, they simply have a significantly different frequency response and the Meta are undoubtedly better. Unless using robust EQ, the older LS50 should not be used to predict the performance of the newer one.

The Metas are very similar in measured performance to the Genelec 8030C, except the latter have more linear bass extension (and can almost surely play louder without problems).

I made this comparison a little while ago:

They have very similar measurements overall. The Genelec's have more low bass, but they have roughly similar overall extension. Which bass profile works better will likely depend on room placement. Again, as someone who tends to keep speakers near the front wall, i usually prefer a bit of roll-off. But with room EQ it's kind of moot.

The Metas also have an obvious advantage in vertical directivity, which isn't that important but imo does have an audible impact nonetheless.

The LS50 Wireless II use DSP to further optimize the response of the Metas, most notably removing the upper mid dip. It seemingly makes them roughly comparable to Genelec the ones levels. But again SPL/distortion limitations apply if not using a sub. With a sub, I believe the differences will be vanishingly small for most people.

 

[kniff]

The LS50 Meta has very significant performance improvements over the LS50. Metamaterial fanciness aside, they simply have a significantly different frequency response and the Meta are undoubtedly better. Unless using robust EQ, the older LS50 should not be used to predict the performance of the newer one.

Absolutely! I was only referring to the "old" LS50 in my post. even the small LSX seems to be performing quite well (recently reviewed here on ASR)

As for my personal opinion, LS50 left a bitter aftertaste so i will probably try Genelecs or similar if the Revels do not fit my preferences. R3 is more likely to enter my apartment if i do get KEF again.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

What about coaxial towers speakers?

 

[mononoaware]

The LS50 Meta has very significant performance improvements over the LS50. Metamaterial fanciness aside, they simply have a significantly different frequency response and the Meta are undoubtedly better. Unless using robust EQ, the older LS50 should not be used to predict the performance of the newer one.

The Metas are very similar in measured performance to the Genelec 8030C, except the latter have more linear bass extension (and can almost surely play louder without problems).

I made this comparison a little while ago:

View attachment 141807

They have very similar measurements overall. The Genelec's have more low bass, but they have roughly similar overall extension. Which bass profile works better will likely depend on room placement. Again, as someone who tends to keep speakers near the front wall, i usually prefer a bit of roll-off. But with room EQ it's kind of moot.

The Metas also have an obvious advantage in vertical directivity, which isn't that important but imo does have an audible impact nonetheless.

The LS50 Wireless II use DSP to further optimize the response of the Metas, most notably removing the upper mid dip. It seemingly makes them roughly comparable to Genelec the ones levels. But again SPL/distortion limitations apply if not using a sub. With a sub, I believe the differences will be vanishingly small for most people.

8030C measurement looks wonkier than I expected.

If you did an overlay with LS50 Meta + 8341A I am pretty sure LS50 Meta will look wonky as well.

Maybe being biased here from experiencing “legendary” LS50, but KEF is just not a preference I would recommend.

 

[mononoaware]

Actually the genelec 8030C measure and sound better while costing less.

I just viewed both 8030C and 8341A measurements by Amir.

Comparing in-room response estimate, it is clear the 8341A measures superior to the 8030C.
8030C estimated in-room response while not terrible looks a bit wonky.

Note: Graph for 8030C is mistakenly named “8030A”.

 

[mononoaware]

No problem! (FYI this was 3-4 years ago, before i discovered ASR)

In no particular order:

• Looks
• Supposed to work well in near-field (my use-case was desktop audio)
• General consensus / hype from youtubers and reviews, reddit
• Price, i paid 650€ for used but an "as new" pair back when MSRP was minimum €1000

I got my money back when i sold them (extremely easy to sell, everybody seemed to want them! This was before Wireless, Meta, LSX..)

This may also be based on my poor experience with listening to LS50, but I have a feeling it is made out to be a better speaker than it actually is. . . by most people.

 

[NeoZs99]

I just viewed both 8030C and 8341A measurements by Amir.

Comparing in-room response estimate, it is clear the 8341A measures superior to the 8030C.
8030C estimated in-room response while not terrible looks a bit wonky.

Note: Graph for 8030C is mistakenly named “8030A”.

I think Mark was talking about the 8030c compared to the KEFs and not the 8431.

 

[mononoaware]

I think Mark was talking about the 8030c compared to the KEFs and not the 8431.

Oh I see. . .

 

[napilopez]

8030C measurement looks wonkier than I expected.

If you did an overlay with LS50 Meta + 8341A I am pretty sure LS50 Meta will look wonky as well.

Maybe being biased here from experiencing “legendary” LS50, but KEF is just not a preference I would recommend.

I'm confused, why are we comparing the Meta to the 8341A? The 8341 is a $6,000 a pair in the US and was not brought up by the OP.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I just want to highlight that it really is not useful to bring the original LS50 into the conversation. Other than sharing an aesthetic and coaxial design principle, the Meta is a totally different speaker. Might as well be talking about a speaker from another brand.

FWIW, I was not crazy about the original LS50 either (I've made a few posts about that in this forum before). They were good, but not that special to me (the original wireless was much better, thanks to some DSP corrections).

To illustrate how different these speakers are, here's how the listening window for the Meta (blue, my measurements) compares to the original LS50 (orange, amir's measurements):

Other than similar bass contour, there's basically nothing to indicate a family resemblance.

Since you brought up the 8341A, the Genelec is the better speaker technically, but the meta is not very behind in practice (with a sub). I've had them both in my home and though I didn't do a direct comparison, the Genelec didn't stand out as being obviously better in independent listening when crossed with a sub. The only thing is the Metas's slight upper mid scoop. But the LS50 Wireless II gets rid of that scoop (at least, according to kef's measurements). You're splitting hair at this level of flatness, really.

If we compare the 8341A to the Meta based on my own measurements for both speakers, we get this for the listening window:

But perhaps a more reliable comparison would be Amir's measurements of the 834aA against the LS50 Meta measurements taken by the Warkyn Klippel NFS for AudioXpress , since the NFS is a bit less fallible than I am =] Note that the bass contour is different here because AudioXpress used a plugged port. Above 200Hz or so the results were virtually identical to an open-port measurement.

(ignore the blip at 15kHz, that was an issue with my digitizing of the graph)

The differences are even smaller.

 

[mononoaware]

I'm confused, why are we comparing the Meta to the 8341A? The 8341 is a $6,000 a pair in the US and was not brought up by the OP.

You're welcome to your opinion, but I just want to highlight that it really is not useful to bring the original LS50 into the conversation. Other than sharing an aesthetic and coaxial design principle, the Meta is a totally different speaker. Might as well be talking about a speaker from another brand.

FWIW, I was not crazy about the original LS50 either (I've made a few posts about that in this forum before). They were good, but not that special to me (the original wireless was much better, thanks to some DSP corrections).

To illustrate how different these speakers are, here's how the listening window for the Meta (blue, my measurements) compares to the original LS50 (orange, amir's measurements):

View attachment 141923

Other than similar bass contour, there's basically nothing to indicate a family resemblance.

Since you brought up the 8341A, the Genelec is the better speaker technically, but the meta is not very behind in practice (with a sub). I've had them both in my home and though I didn't do a direct comparison, the Genelec didn't stand out as being obviously better in independent listening when crossed with a sub. The only thing is the Metas's slight upper mid scoop. But the LS50 Wireless II gets rid of that scoop (at least, according to kef's measurements). You're splitting hair at this level of flatness, really.

If we compare the 8341A to the Meta based on my own measurements for both speakers, we get this for the listening window:

View attachment 141933

But perhaps a more reliable comparison would be Amir's measurements of the 834aA against the LS50 Meta measurements taken by the Warkyn Klippel NFS for AudioXpress , since the NFS is a bit less fallible than I am =] Note that the bass contour is different here because AudioXpress used a plugged port. Above 200Hz or so the results were virtually identical to an open-port measurement.

View attachment 141940
(ignore the blip at 15kHz, that was an issue with my digitizing of the graph)

The differences are even smaller.

Hi I apologise if I was bashing the LS50 Meta, I tried my best to differentiate which product I was talking about with careful use in my comments of "LS50" or "LS50 Meta".

Initially I wanted to say in a coaxial vs coaxial comparison I think the Genelec 8331A/8341A are the superior speaker overall compared to KEF LS50 Meta/LS50Wii.
As you can see in my initial comment I was referring to those models as a comparison, still being open regarding the possibility to OP for going with the KEF's.

Just in my opinion, and this of course is biased according to my knowledge and understanding, but the Genelec coaxial is of superior design (LS50 Series design asks coaxial woofer to perform both mid and bass frequencies) and the better speaker not just in measurements, but build quality and product longevity.
Especially in an "active vs active" comparison I consider the Genelec's to be the better investment given you have the budget.

I admit when typing that first comment I skimmed across OP's post and thought they were either choosing between "LS50 Meta + Amplifier/LS50Wii" vs "Genelec 8030C", so thought the 8331A and 8341A were a better comparison as well as investment (based on ASR interactions many users had much higher budget available, maybe I am wrong to assume this, I currently have an extremely tight budget myself).
Also I perceive the LS50Wii as high likely-hood of early failure, therefore I factor that into the "cheaper" outright cost (lowering its value).
I completely forgot about the fact OP is already using SVS SB1000 subwoofer which I was also partly accounting as a future expense if choosing the LS50 Meta option path.

I appreciate you for creating the overlays to put things in a more common perspective.
I agree from your measurements the LS50 Meta seems to measure much better than the original LS50.
(the 2k-5k boost is likely one of the things that bothered me about the original LS50's sound)
And maybe since OP already has the SB1000 subwoofer (with adjustable High-pass filter) the "LS50 Meta + Amplifier" path is a more natural direction.
Hopefully they are satisfied with LS50 Meta and can avoid going down the road of "changing passive speakers" and additional expenses in the next few years, when maybe they would have been better off just investing in the Genelec to begin with. . . (and maybe selling the SB1000 to gain back some expenses?)

 

[thewas]

By the way with DSP or parametric EQ the old LS50 can be made to sound very similar to the LS50 Meta as I had shown here, since I own both.

Since you brought up the 8341A, the Genelec is the better speaker technically, but the meta is not very behind in practice (with a sub). I've had them both in my home and though I didn't do a direct comparison, the Genelec didn't stand out as being obviously better in independent listening when crossed with a sub.

Interesting, in my case my old pair of LS50 with EQ even replaced my Genelec M040 (very similar to 8040) and my Neumann KH120 for my desktop setup as there I don't need the extra SPL and the coax provides for me bigger advantages when I sit at different heights and considering the strong reflection of the desk surface.

 

[q3cpma]

8030C measurement looks wonkier than I expected.

Just remember that the 8030C on-axis is flatter than what is shown, as the vertical angle during Amir's measurement wasn't perfect (as you can see in these two posts). There's still a significant dip in the power response, though.