How to evaluate a ELAC Navis bookshelf (powered speaker) versus the KEF LS-50 Wireless 2 (active speaker)?
* KEF claims “end-to-end 192kHz/24-bit high-resolution digital signal path”. I am not certain what the constraining factor in their DAC / DSP system is, or what the significant feature advantage(s) might be.
I am under the impression the DAC has the largest influence on the final sound, at least with my limited equipment.
* RME ADI-2 DAC (studio), which has XLR output.
* AudioEngine A3 speakers (powered) connected to two
* REL T/Xero MKIII subwoofers.
I mostly listen to acoustic music like classical or jazz
* within six feet
* at low volumes
* in small spaces.
Tidal Masters is my source from a Mac M1 laptop.
I am veering towards the Navis because the division of function is distinct. I do not know what to expect as a difference in sound. Both the ELAC and KEF architectures appear to be perfectly valid approaches that probably achieve a very similar sonic end.
Some examples of music I use to evaluate performance by, in no particular order. Hi-def status does not seem to play a prominent role. The bit depth and sampling rate do not seem to make a substantial difference. MQA appears to be a moot issue.
* KEF claims “end-to-end 192kHz/24-bit high-resolution digital signal path”. I am not certain what the constraining factor in their DAC / DSP system is, or what the significant feature advantage(s) might be.
- Can you tell me how a studio grade DAC connected (balanced XLR) to the Navis powered speaker perform, compared to an all-in-one DAC/DSP system?
I am under the impression the DAC has the largest influence on the final sound, at least with my limited equipment.
* RME ADI-2 DAC (studio), which has XLR output.
* AudioEngine A3 speakers (powered) connected to two
* REL T/Xero MKIII subwoofers.
I mostly listen to acoustic music like classical or jazz
* within six feet
* at low volumes
* in small spaces.
Tidal Masters is my source from a Mac M1 laptop.
I am veering towards the Navis because the division of function is distinct. I do not know what to expect as a difference in sound. Both the ELAC and KEF architectures appear to be perfectly valid approaches that probably achieve a very similar sonic end.
Some examples of music I use to evaluate performance by, in no particular order. Hi-def status does not seem to play a prominent role. The bit depth and sampling rate do not seem to make a substantial difference. MQA appears to be a moot issue.
- Marsalis Standard Time - All Volumes - Aesthetic and skillful playing of jazz standards
- Prototypical Caravan
- Rhythm
- Harmony
- Melody
- Prototypical Caravan
- Antiphonal Music of Gabrieli - I love the hall acoustic decay effect on call/response of instruments
- Prototypical La Spirtata
- Harmony
- Melody
- Rhythm
- Prototypical La Spirtata
- Chic Corea Plays - Wide diversity of genres on piano
- Prototypical - Mozart KV 332
- Melody
- Harmony
- Rhythm
- Prototypical - Mozart KV 332
- Duke Ellington & John Coltrane - The melodies and harmony are fantastic
- Prototypical - Angelica
- Harmony
- Rhythm
- Melody
- Prototypical - Angelica
- Masterpieces In Miniature - Dynamics
- Prototypical - Rosamunde
- Melody
- Harmony
- Rhythm
- Prototypical - Rosamunde
- Soultrane
- Prototypical - Good Bait
- Harmony
- Rhythm
- Melody
- Prototypical - Good Bait
- Dexter Calling
- Prototypical Soul Sister.
- Harmony
- Melody
- Rhythm
- Prototypical Soul Sister.
- Rhythm (speed, responsiveness, etc...)
- Melody (tone, frequency ranges, drivers, amplification, etc...)
- Harmorny (dynamics, crossover, spacial, etc...)
Last edited: