I swapped Ls50 for an R3 meta ….im I imagining

[terryforsythe]

A true fullrange single driver dont have this specific modulation problem , because the whole driver is moving.

A full range driver will experience the Doppler effect - the effect that causes a train's whistle to change pitch when it passes. Now, consider a full range driver playing music both with 50 Hz and 10 kHz content. As the driver is moving outward for the bass signal, the frequency of the 10 kHz signal will shift higher in frequency. As the driver is moving inward for the bass signal, the 10 kHz signal will shift lower in frequency.

Whether this actually is audible I don't know. I also don't know whether the coincident driver modulation issue is audible.

 

[Rednaxela]

Would this be the case for a (full range) microphone too?

 

[Tangband]

A full range driver will experience the Doppler effect - the effect that causes a train's whistle to change pitch when it passes. Now, consider a full range driver playing music both with 50 Hz and 10 kHz content. As the driver is moving outward for the bass signal, the frequency of the 10 kHz signal will shift higher in frequency. As the driver is moving inward for the bass signal, the 10 kHz signal will shift lower in frequency.

Whether this actually is audible I don't know. I also don't know whether the coincident driver modulation issue is audible.

Coaxial have other problems because of the fixed non-moving tweeter in the middle of a moving bass unit. This is a Kef driver and Erins investigation :

Kef Q100 Speaker Drive Unit Testing

Kef Q100

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

”I thought it would be interesting to see how the position of the woofer cone impacts the frequency response of the tweeter. This matters when you’re listening to music and isn’t captured by a standard sine sweep. To measure this performance I simply connected a 9v battery to the woofer’s terminals in positive polarity, then negative polarity which resulted in an approximate +/-3mm shift in cone direction.”

 

[voodooless]

Would this be the case for a (full range) microphone too?

No. Firstly, the movement is much, much lower. Secondly, it records the sound waves as they hit the membrane. There is no additional modulation going on.

When reproducing this via a speaker, you have a driver doing high excursion on bass content, and playing high-frequency content as well, usually with lower output. Since the microphone was nearly stationary when recoding, there is a mismatch in the reproduction of the high-frequency tone, because it's reproduced from a non-stationary object. So a multi-way system should do much better. And in a Coaxial system, it actually happens due to air coupling between the two units.

The above plots of the Markaudio driver are nevertheless excellent. The question is whether you can see Doppler distortion in this kind of plot, because:

The effect is very small (to the point of being virtually inaudible by itself), and is usually swamped (or masked if you prefer) by amplitude modulation and intermodulation distortion, so could be considered immaterial in any typical loudspeaker system. If people really want to describe the effect as a distortion - not an unreasonable assumption, since it does exist - then it should be re-named. The correct term is (in my opinion) Phase Modulation Distortion (PMD), and I suggest that the term 'Doppler distortion' be dropped from usage, since it is too easy for people to misinterpret.

See: https://sound-au.com/doppler.htm#outro

I'm pretty sure you guys are chasing ghosts..

 

[thewas]

Thanks for the interesting links . Now - is there a possibility that newer loudspeaker drivers might behave better ?

The doppler distortion is driver design independent as it depends only on the movement of the cone, so for the same driver size and SPL it will be the same.
The IMD depends also on the driver motor and surround design but for the same driver it will be also less if the signal is bandlimited.
That's the reason why also usually 2-way designs are quite a compromise when it comes to higher SPLs and why I would recommend you using such a compact fullband driver rather in a F.A.S.T. configuration.

 

[RobL]

The doppler distortion is driver design independent as it depends only on the movement of the cone, so for the same driver size and SPL it will be the same.
The IMD depends also on the driver motor and surround design but for the same driver it will be also less if the signal is bandlimited.
That's the reason why also usually 2-way designs are quite a compromise when it comes to higher SPLs and why I would recommend you using such a compact fullband driver rather in a F.A.S.T. configuration.

Wouldn’t cone breakup be a larger (and more audible) problem for a full range driver? From the Joseph Crowe link above:

Looks like this driver is experiencing that starting at 5khz and up….

 

[voodooless]

That's the reason why also usually 2-way designs are quite a compromise when it comes to higher SPLs and why I would recommend you using such a compact fullband driver rather in a F.A.S.T. configuration.

I think other forms of distortion are way more dominant though.

 

[thewas]

I think other forms of distortion are way more dominant though.

In my experience the multitone distortion of 2-way or even worse fullband drivers is usually the most audible one and the not harmonic one*, so I am happy that reviewers like S&R, EAC and Nuyes measure it.
*Drivers with low HD tend to have also lower mutitone distortion and vise versa but the audible effect is rather the MD, especially in the mid band.

 

[thewas]

Wouldn’t cone breakup be a larger (and more audible) problem for a full range driver? From the Joseph Crowe link above:
View attachment 353531
Looks like this driver is experiencing that starting at 5khz and up….

Of course such a resonance peak is very audible (amplitude response errors are always the most audible), I am talking about good drivers which do not have such.

 

[Tangband]

Wouldn’t cone breakup be a larger (and more audible) problem for a full range driver? From the Joseph Crowe link above:
View attachment 353531
Looks like this driver is experiencing that starting at 5khz and up….

All fullrange drivers need eq .

 

[Tangband]

On topic again: we are discussing why someone can prefer the soundstage from a ls50 speaker instead of a r3 meta .

I say the reason is that the ls50 is a single point source speaker and that crossing over the uniQ driver to a bass unit at 420 Hz as in r3 Meta is a case of both cons and advantages .

 

[Vacceo]

Also it is a cost factor, the LS50 exists only as a compact model while for the R series they would have to make curved baffles and enclosures also for the floorstanders which they even avoided at their Reference series.

I guess It depends on more than just the shape. 20 years ago the IQ series were curved and fell on the affordable section.

The Blades are also curved and a loooot more expensive, so I guess it's not a matter of euclidean vs. non-euclidean geometry.

 

[dogmamann]

Biggest reason is probably the andvantage for ls50 being a single source speaker - this will image better , no matter how other technical advantages might be with the r3 meta. Every crossover mess up the sound somewhat, even if its in the transition area.

as per that logic q100 should sound better than reference 5 meta.

 

[nygafre]

Based on my experiences with R3 Meta and other speakers (namely Dali recently), my ‘feeling’ is that it might be the directivity - if indeed the LS50’s are a bit wider.

Even though the R3 M’s are better than the Spektor 2s I own, and some Opticon 2 MK2’s I’ve demoed alongside my Metas at home, I certainly enjoyed the Dalis a lot for stereo music listening (and I think it is due to their directivity). For movies, the Metas outshone them both with their precision and clarity. Things got a bit closer when I corrected the Opticons to the same target I use for my Kefs, but still found the kefs better for movies.

 

[Thomas_A]

There are several differences if we compare the original LS50 vs. the R3 Meta. As already mentioned, the LS50 has peaking 3-4 kHz, which has several effects; one being that leading edge transients and high frequencies will be enhanced more for hard-panned sounds. It "may" sound more wide. The large negative is that peaking in the frequency response reveal the speakers as - speakers. Peaking in tweeters are "bad" in the respect (>2 kHz). The R3 Meta should be much more forgiving in that respect. The other thing "might" be dispersion, but I am not sure there is enough difference in dispersion of these speakers.. A wider even dispersion will fill in those crosstalk timbral errors better and also remove some of the characteristics that stereo speakers have, revealing their positions as - speakers.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I bought the LS50 Meta, namely to try out what all the fuss was about with the Meta, and as a "reference" to my DIY build.
To me, the Meta version mostly wins on the better drivers and cross-over. Because when I fire up my DIY with a KEF (dedicated midrange) driver from a R3 non Meta, then it's very easy to get great sound with an active cross-over and way smoother response, making it sound awesome and actually - in my ears - better than the passive Meta, because the passive Meta out of the box, is simply not that smooth after all, with its slight "signature".
EQ'ed, I find no lack of sound stage or imagine between either design. Remember to point your speakers straight forward. KEF coax are best a few degrees off-axis, because of the design of that tweeter.

So again, like others have mentioned. Frequency, directivity, extension and setup is key, before judging anything. And if you like the LS50. EQ them a bit and add subwoofers.

Look at the EQ'ed KEF R3 Meta at 10 degrees:
https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/KEF R3 Meta/ErinsAudioCorner/index_eac-v1-ported-10-degrees.html

 

[Digital_Thor]

On topic again: we are discussing why someone can prefer the soundstage from a ls50 speaker instead of a r3 meta .

I say the reason is that the ls50 is a single point source speaker and that crossing over the uniQ driver to a bass unit at 420 Hz as in r3 Meta is a case of both cons and advantages .

I would much rather have the dedicated midrange and smoother upper octave response, and live with that small compromise of the added woofer, which I find quite needed anyway for serious listening - IME.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

so the ls60 is wider or narrow than ls50 / r3 meta?

 

[Digital_Thor]

so the ls60 is wider or narrow than ls50 / r3 meta?

Narrower. Compared to many speakers... It's a stick in space

 

[thewas]

so the ls60 is wider or narrow than ls50 / r3 meta?

The LS60 radiation is significantly wider than R3 Meta

Easily compare loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

and only a tad wider than the LS50 Meta

Easily compare loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org