How does it sound ? - Kef LS60 W

[srrxr71]

Aesthetics is what informs and analizes what you like and dislike. Everything is aesthetical, even extreme utilitarism is.

I prefer my speakers in black in front of black acoustic panels and kept out of line of sight. I prefer they disappear.

 

[Tangband]

Did a longer listening again to ls60 - for the people that wonders - is the sound better than cheaper Genelec monitors + Genelec subwoofers fed with a digital signal using GLM optimized for the room ?

I would say the sound quality are about the same, with advantage to Genelec for room correction and the last 10 Hz in deep bass. The Kef wins hands down on the looks.

So - for a complicated room with the need for roomcorrection, a pair of digitaly fed 8340 from a really good source ( not Yamaha wxc50, bluesound and such ) and a pair of 7350 is better sounding, much uglier but also cheaper. For the Genelecs theres a need for a really good streamer or computer and a DDC , and a good loudspeaker stand thats about 60-63 cm high. In the ls60, everything is built into the cabinet, including a streamer.

With that said - Those are well executed active dsp speakers we are talking about, and the soundquality is because of that very good . Theres NO comparison with ANY passive loudspeaker for 7000 dollars that comes anywhere near in sound quality, in my experience, just forget it.
With those active speakers, a blanket has been lifted and you can hear more details with spatial qualitys than in passive speakers.

 

[thewas]

With those active speakers, a blanket has been lifted and you can hear more details with spatial qualitys than in passive speakers.

I know I shouldn't reply to trolls but you really seem to be looking for pathetic self confirmation to repeat your subjective nonsense weekly in any thread you find the opportunity.

 

[holbob]

I know I shouldn't reply to trolls but you really seem to be looking for pathetic self confirmation to repeat your subjective nonsense weekly in any thread you find the opportunity.

I think in this case the punishment for his "subjective nonsense", is far worse than the actual crime. There's no need to be so hostile - he is talking about speakers, not electronics. Words like "nonsense" and "pathetic" are uncalled for, and can only lead to a belittling experience. Who is the "troll"?

 

[thewas]

I think in this case the punishment for his "subjective nonsense", is far worse than the actual crime. There's no need to be so hostile - he is talking about speakers, not electronics. Words like "nonsense" and "pathetic" are uncalled for, and can only lead to a belittling experience. Who is the "troll"?

The problem is he repeatedly does this although there were even several topics where these topics were discussed to a large extension. If you read my posts here I usually try to avoid such harsh sounding wording but I believe sometimes things should be called what they are if there is no change in the behaviour observed and if in times of pseudo correctness rather such is punished than the cause, I can gladly live with it.

 

[holbob]

Perhaps the word "pathetic" was uncalled-for, but the word "nonsense" still applies. Any time that some one posts about "blankets being lifted" or "musicality" or claims that one iteration of electronics is inherently more "spatial" than the other, they are hewing to the subjectivist protocols.

Subjectivist protocols advance non-quantifiable language, that is vague and indeterminate, as having value. It does not have value. Not a lot, and not even a little.

Defense of such an agenda is what is un-called for, not the criticism of it.

BTW - The use of the words "belittling" and "hostile" are common to trolls. The purpose is to adopt a stance of pretended injury. Projection is also common to trolls; accuse the respondent of your own behavior. I think you'll agree that it is best that such rhetoric is not used on this site.

Jim Taylor

Great straw man - I didn't defend his agenda - I criticised the behaviour of the hostile poster - and not the hostile posters opinion either. Free speech should be allowed without fear of attacks. Contradiction and criticism is NOT an attack. I defend the right of the hostile poster to contradict the poster.

The phrase "The purpose is to adopt a stance of pretended injury. Projection is also common to trolls; accuse the respondent of your own behavior." is also one of the most subjectivist things I've ever read on this forum. None of that is proven in psychological science. It's just your opinion. Nobody can determine how the "harassed" person feels, only the person. That was also not my purpose at all - another straw man.

 

[Vacceo]

Did a longer listening again to ls60 - for the people that wonders - is the sound better than cheaper Genelec monitors + Genelec subwoofers fed with a digital signal using GLM optimized for the room ?

I would say the sound quality are about the same, with advantage to Genelec for room correction and the last 10 Hz in deep bass. The Kef wins hands down on the looks.

So - for a complicated room with the need for roomcorrection, a pair of digitaly fed 8340 from a really good source ( not Yamaha wxc50, bluesound and such ) and a pair of 7350 is better sounding, much uglier but also cheaper. For the Genelecs theres a need for a really good streamer or computer and a DDC , and a good loudspeaker stand thats about 60-63 cm high. In the ls60, everything is built into the cabinet, including a streamer.

With that said - Those are well executed active dsp speakers we are talking about, and the soundquality is because of that very good . Theres NO comparison with ANY passive loudspeaker for 7000 dollars that comes anywhere near in sound quality, in my experience, just forget it.
With those active speakers, a blanket has been lifted and you can hear more details with spatial qualitys than in passive speakers.

Aesthetics aside, there is another plus for the LS: they are very usable and convenient; almost plug and play.

 

[sajgre]

I have just heard them in a hotel room in hifi show. They played in combination with kef sub ... And the sound was absolutelly horrible. I'm not saying that they are bad speakers, I'm just saying that the only way to evaluate speaker is at home.
They look great and I would love to hear what they are capable off. The price was 5500eur.

 

[ahofer]

I enjoy hearing about subjective experiences with speakers, as long as some description of the room, differences from expectation, and, even better, corresponding measurements are offered. There are some folks on this forum, for instance, who've found Genelecs very unpleasant. That's interesting, even if I wish they reported/investigated it in a more fact-based way. I'm sure their related impressions are true to their experience, but is it because they are used to a very different presentation? Because of their room setup?

iow, carry on.

 

[Tangband]

I have just heard them in a hotel room in hifi show. They played in combination with kef sub ... And the sound was absolutelly horrible. I'm not saying that they are bad speakers, I'm just saying that the only way to evaluate speaker is at home.
They look great and I would love to hear what they are capable off. The price was 5500eur.

Maybe they did a poor setup of the speakers in the hotel room ? In what way did you think the sound was horrible ?

 

[thewas]

I enjoy hearing about subjective experiences with speakers, as long as some description of the room, differences from expectation, and, even better, corresponding measurements are offered.

I have also no problem at all reading subjective experiences, only when they are used to draw flawed conclusions and these are then presented not as opinions but as generalisations and absolute truths. I even have written few of those in the past like for example in another thread:

...
As an anecdotal personal experience if I have the choice I usually end up closing the ports of subwoofers as it mostly sounds better to me when equalised to the same LP response but my experience is as said anecdotal, not blinded and limited.

The difference in the way of stating is quite obvious.

 

[sajgre]

Maybe they did a poor setup of the speakers in the hotel room ? In what way did you think the sound was horrible ?

Of course they did poor setup, the sub was 'dialed in' by ear, sitting in the middle of the speakers, more than 1m from front wall. It sounded like it was playing with big delay.
My subjective experience of how ls60 plays is worthless because of bad room/setup... I just wrote about it so that people know that there are way to many variables to evaluate speaker if you can't hear it in your room.
Fortunately this setup was so bad that I'm sure it can't be speakers fault... What if it was better but still not doing them justice. I would happily claim that the are not very good. This kind of "evaluation" is worthless.

 

[Marc v E]

Did a longer listening again to ls60 - for the people that wonders - is the sound better than cheaper Genelec monitors + Genelec subwoofers fed with a digital signal using GLM optimized for the room ?

I would say the sound quality are about the same, with advantage to Genelec for room correction and the last 10 Hz in deep bass. The Kef wins hands down on the looks.

So - for a complicated room with the need for roomcorrection, a pair of digitaly fed 8340 from a really good source ( not Yamaha wxc50, bluesound and such ) and a pair of 7350 is better sounding, much uglier but also cheaper. For the Genelecs theres a need for a really good streamer or computer and a DDC , and a good loudspeaker stand thats about 60-63 cm high. In the ls60, everything is built into the cabinet, including a streamer.

With that said - Those are well executed active dsp speakers we are talking about, and the soundquality is because of that very good . Theres NO comparison with ANY passive loudspeaker for 7000 dollars that comes anywhere near in sound quality, in my experience, just forget it.
With those active speakers, a blanket has been lifted and you can hear more details with spatial qualitys than in passive speakers.

As a Genelec owner this observation makes me smile. For 1000 euros per speaker and 1100 for the sub, the Genelecs are half the price of the ls60.

I do sometimes wonder if I should go the Genelec Sam route for my second system and later on for my main. The unit itself retails for 250 or thereabouts. Sam speakers start at 750 per speaker. In my country basically any good sub starts at 750 to 1000 euros. Then I should add the minidsp flex and add a lot of time and steep learning curve or buy Genelecs and be done with it.

 

[Vacceo]

As a Genelec owner this observation makes me smile. For 1000 euros per speaker and 1100 for the sub, the Genelecs are half the price of the ls60.

I do sometimes wonder if I should go the Genelec Sam route for my second system and later on for my main. The unit itself retails for 250 or thereabouts. Sam speakers start at 750 per speaker. In my country basically any good sub starts at 750 to 1000 euros. Then I should add the minidsp flex and add a lot of time and steep learning curve or buy Genelecs and be done with it.

I don't know how much Genelec sells to home users (as opposed to professionals), but I'm quite surprised they haven't designed (even in collaboration) an AVR or preamp to fully take advantage of their speakers in a home environment.

 

[Marc v E]

I don't know how much Genelec sells to home users (as opposed to professionals), but I'm quite surprised they haven't designed (even in collaboration) an AVR or preamp to fully take advantage of their speakers in a home environment.

Afaik SAM can be used for a 5.1 or atmos eq setup. I don't think they would ever consider making AVRs, though.

(Genelec produces speakers in relatively low numbers. They would thus never be able to compete with an AVR on price with the likes of Denon, Marantz, Sony etc who mass produce these things.)

I think Genelec is aware of their growing popularity among consumers. Iirc there is a promotion short video on how to use Genelec monitors in a home setup.
Found it: https://www.genelec.com/home-theatres

 

[Vacceo]

Afaik SAM can be used for a 5.1 or atmos eq setup. I don't think they would ever consider making AVRs, though.

(Genelec produces speakers in relatively low numbers. They would thus never be able to compete with an AVR on price with the likes of Denon, Marantz, Sony etc who mass produce these things.)

I think Genelec is aware of their growing popularity among consumers. Iirc there is a promotion short video on how to use Genelec monitors in a home setup.
Found it: https://www.genelec.com/home-theatres

It is perfectly possible to use Genelecs with an AVP for an incredible set up. Too bad you have to pay the additional price of room correction.

On the other hand, if you want digital output, the choice is Trinnov...

 

[Tangband]

Another review with measurements :

Stereo: Produkt

www.stereo.de

 

[MattHooper]

Subjectivist protocols advance non-quantifiable language, that is vague and indeterminate, as having value. It does not have value. Not a lot, and not even a little.

Please remember that you are making a value judgement, which is subjective...your opinion...not objective. You are leaping from the claim that the descriptive language used by many audiophiles is "non-quantifiable" to "It Does Not Have Value." Much of human descriptive language is non-quantified in any strict sense - yet it would be absurd to therefore conclude "it does not have value" either in a general sense, or even in the sense of being worthless for transmitting information. Have you noticed that virtually any audio luminary you might think of resorts to subjective description of sound when being pragmatic? (That includes our forum founder, Floyd Toole...and almost anyone else).

I argue that the complaint about subjective description being "without value" is one of the more misguided tropes that arise in this forum from time to time.

Defense of such an agenda is what is un-called for, not the criticism of it.

That suggests dogmatism, falling right in to the caricature many audiophiles hold of a forum like this, that many on this forum seek to avoid. I'd think this forum values freedom of speech and that anyone's claim in this forum can be challenged, so long as the discussions are held in good faith. In fact, one of the ways you discover one person has the better evidence/arguments arises from such discussion. Otherwise it may as well be a dogmatic echo-chamber.

You've made a contentious claim about the value of putting sound in to subjective language. It is not "uncalled for" to have your claim put under scrutiny.

We have to live in the real world, and pragmatism will be a necessary feature. We can't measure every thing we do, so communicating via subjective description will be pragmatic and justified. To even make the case why measurements should by relevant at all to a listener, you will have to at some point correlated the measurements to "How It Sounds" which will mean adopting subjective description!

 

[MAB]

Please remember that you are making a value judgement, which is subjective...your opinion...not objective. You are leaping from the claim that the descriptive language used by many audiophiles is "non-quantifiable" to "It Does Not Have Value."

I do understand your point, and we all have use for descriptive language. I just used such language in a long post about speakers and filters, but I tried to be careful and present it as my impressions of the actual measurements. And I was super-careful to not use it to draw non-scientific conclusions or insert my predisposed notions or advance logical fallacies. If I wasn't careful enough, I expect to be called on it here at ASR.

But what you are commenting on here is just a bit different I think, it's subjectivist language used to advance a point with no evidence over multiple threads. In this case, the poster has a long-held pseudo-scientific belief that active speakers are superior than passive in every way. In fact, if you look at the history here, this point has been used to troll other posters here dozens of times. Threads asking reasonable questions about crossover filters get hijacked, people get accused of not being "real hifi enthusiasts" for not agreeing that active-DSP is better in every single way no matter what. Along the way, no evidence is offered, just hifi flower-language just like the poster got called on here. Even if right, such ideological positions are not helpful; to experts they waste time, and to people seeking information they are downright misleading. And to be clear, in critical areas they are wrong. The discussions about the (many) strengths and (few) weaknesses of DSP get derailed by this, and the thread collapses due to bad signal to noise ratio.

It's not just the language, the poster has provided no evidence except the language and used it to beat down people who actually have data and evidence across multiple threads, and gone on without end. So, in this case, the descriptive language is really valueless, expect that is used to confuse over and over. So, I think totally warranted.

 

[MattHooper]

I do understand your point, and we all have use for descriptive language. I just used such language in a long post about speakers and filters, but I tried to be careful and present it as my impressions of the actual measurements. And I was super-careful to not use it to draw non-scientific conclusions or insert my predisposed notions or advance logical fallacies. If I wasn't careful enough, I expect to be called on it here at ASR.

But what you are commenting on here is just a bit different I think, it's subjectivist language used to advance a point with no evidence over multiple threads. In this case, the poster has a long-held pseudo-scientific belief that active speakers are superior than passive in every way. In fact, if you look at the history here, this point has been used to troll other posters here dozens of times. Threads asking reasonable questions about crossover filters get hijacked, people get accused of not being "real hifi enthusiasts" for not agreeing that active-DSP is better in every single way no matter what. Along the way, no evidence is offered, just hifi flower-language just like the poster got called on here. Even if right, such ideological positions are not helpful; to experts they waste time, and to people seeking information they are downright misleading. And to be clear, in critical areas they are wrong. The discussions about the (many) strengths and (few) weaknesses of DSP get derailed by this, and the thread collapses due to bad signal to noise ratio.

It's not just the language, the poster has provided no evidence except the language and used it to beat down people who actually have data and evidence across multiple threads, and gone on without end. So, in this case, the descriptive language is really valueless, expect that is used to confuse over and over. So, I think totally warranted.

Hi MAB.

I see no problem whatsoever with establishing that any particular person's subjective claim is poorly justified and not useful to many on this forum. Or even that some collection of similar claims are likewise poorly justified (e.g. shared audiophile myths about "break-in" and other tweaky stuff) and not useful (for the goals of many in the forum).

I only have a problem when the claims become sloppily generalized - let alone proposed as incontrovertible - which is what I saw in the post I responded to.