Digital_Thor
Senior Member
Oh sorry... You meant dispersion, not physicallyso the ls60 is wider or narrow than ls50 / r3 meta?
Oh sorry... You meant dispersion, not physicallyso the ls60 is wider or narrow than ls50 / r3 meta?
My perspective is that all speakers are a compromise.
There's more excursion in the coaxial driver in the LS50 and that excursion negatively impacts other aspects of its performance.
All compromises.
I SAM mine on devialet and play low volume mainly late night listening so 60-65 …So lets reduce that excursion by high-passing them.
Like i previously said: LS50's + Dual Subs could be had for the same price as the R3's
Curious if you see any compromise in this?
(pairing the LS50's with subwoofer(s)
I think this provides good reasoning for using a woofer with a coaxial driver. If the bass is offloaded from the midrange (or midwoofer), there will be less excursion of the midrange (or midwoofer) at a given SPL. That should result in a smaller dip in the response.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 :
”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.”
View attachment 353522
That’s largely going to fall into preference territory. I have 2 rhythmik F8’s which can comfortably play up to 150hz. When I put the meta’s on top of them (on platform stands) it was more fun to listen to them crossed high. 2 pairs of 8” drivers makes for great mid bass punch and thr mids on the ls50’s really benefited, but the point source imaging was negatively impacted (slightly). At 150hz you’ve got vocals coming through the subwoofers and there’s localization. Crossed over at 60hz, the point source realism returned, but the mids didn’t seem to benefit as much as they did with the higher crossover. Both sounded amazing, but ultimately I preferred the 60hz crossover because I value the 3D imaging more than I value the extra mid bass slam. Your taste may be different, but either can sound fantastic. I listen to a lot of singer songwriter stuff and jazz so that better meets my needs. When I listen to Billie Eilish I’d rather have the crossover higher and that’s a really benefit to running some kind of Minidsp setup that would allow you to optimize for both scenarios at the touch of a button.So lets reduce that excursion by high-passing them.
Like i previously said : LS50 Meta + Dual Subs could be had for the same price as the R3's
Curious if you see any compromise in this?
(pairing the LS50's with subwoofer(s)
that’s a really benefit to running some kind of Minidsp setup that would allow you to optimize for both scenarios at the touch of a button.
One more reason to ask KEF for a way to go multichannel on their active speakers. Corrected DSP crossover and a bit extra punch on a single point source? Give me 11 of them!I think this provides good reasoning for using a woofer with a coaxial driver. If the bass is offloaded from the midrange (or midwoofer), there will be less excursion of the midrange (or midwoofer) at a given SPL. That should result in a smaller dip in the response.
agree.That’s largely going to fall into preference territory. I have 2 rhythmik F8’s which can comfortably play up to 150hz. When I put the meta’s on top of them (on platform stands) it was more fun to listen to them crossed high. 2 pairs of 8” drivers makes for great mid bass punch and thr mids on the ls50’s really benefited, but the point source imaging was negatively impacted (slightly). At 150hz you’ve got vocals coming through the subwoofers and there’s localization. Crossed over at 60hz, the point source realism returned, but the mids didn’t seem to benefit as much as they did with the higher crossover. Both sounded amazing, but ultimately I preferred the 60hz crossover because I value the 3D imaging more than I value the extra mid bass slam. Your taste may be different, but either can sound fantastic. I listen to a lot of singer songwriter stuff and jazz so that better meets my needs. When I listen to Billie Eilish I’d rather have the crossover higher and that’s a really benefit to running some kind of Minidsp setup that would allow you to optimize for both scenarios at the touch of a button.
agree.
If one has the subwoofers placed on the floor, its often better soundwise to set the crossover below 70 Hz in my experience. I have no doubt that crossing at 60 Hz is better for more point source realism, even If the point source have to move its cone more with potentional more distortion to play down to that crossover frequency.
You could try putting your stereo subwoofers Rythmik F8 on two chairs near the L and R speaker, so they are at the same hight as the main point source speaker. Doing this, you might get a way with a slightly higher crossover frequency ( like 100 Hz ) before the point source magic starts to suffer. Going any higher with a Lp and Hp crossover is difficult without compromises in the soundstage.
Very subjective :
(It seems like I dont like the sound of crossovers between 100 - 600 Hz , maybe its because its right where the frequencies of speach or singing is , and my ears are more critical to that sound reference ?)
Edit: I did like the sound from kef ls60 , so there are exceptions.
If you start a building thread it would be very interesting to followMy current build should be very much inline with what you're talking about and I don't anticipate needing subwoofers (Blade style dual opposed LDW7's). So 4 drivers side mounted surrounding the front facing maop 5 in the middle.
That looks like a wavecor driver.... down to every specs .. interesting.My current build should be very much inline with what you're talking about and I don't anticipate needing subwoofers (Blade style dual opposed LDW7's). So 4 drivers side mounted surrounding the front facing maop 5 in the middle.
I have dali oberon 3 and want to upgrade to kef 3 meta, do you think it's worth it?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.
That’s a firm yes from my side! Still love some of the Dali models, but I find Kef to outshine them and therefore worth the extra $$. Will probably take some time to adjust to them. The R3 Metas have a more neutral (but fairly deep) bass response, whereas Dali might have more mid bass/bass bump etc. The ‘extra’ bass was nice on the Opticons initially, but after some time it was a bit too much of a good thing for my taste/room. (I measured the responses in REW too). Everything just sounds more defined on the R3’s out of the box. And as always, people will have different preferences.I have dali oberon 3 and want to upgrade to kef 3 meta, do you think it's worth it?
Thanks a lot!!!That’s a firm yes from my side! Still love some of the Dali models, but I find Kef to outshine them and therefore worth the extra $$. Will probably take some time to adjust to them. The R3 Metas have a more neutral (but fairly deep) bass response, whereas Dali might have more mid bass/bass bump etc. The ‘extra’ bass was nice on the Opticons initially, but after some time it was a bit too much of a good thing for my taste/room. (I measured the responses in REW too). Everything just sounds more defined on the R3’s out of the box. And as always, people will have different preferences.
Thank you for explaining your impressions of the LS50 Meta vs the R3.I bought the R3 meta to replace a pair of LS50 about at the time the author created the topic.
I loved the ls50, with single svs3000 micro sub, and thought de R3 would be the natural stepup. Also thanks to ASR and erin, I had some objective data to backup the investment.
I noticed better dynamics and that some sounds were meatier, fuller with the R3, for example bass or even classical guitars, cello's shine in theses. But also my first impression was the sound was less floating, airy, imaged, than the ls50, and vocals were put back in the mix (still good but not jaw-dropping good as in the ls50). I put a ls50 as center channel and had thoses qualities and clarity back immediatly (althought not in stereo).
I use denon x2800h with audissey correction, phone app, tried multiple placement, corrections (up to 500hz, 2khz, multiple curves), but they marginaly seem to change anything on this. Also I get strong sibillance if I use flat eq with audissey, corrected by using no correction above 500hz or desending curve in aimed response.
Now that near 10 monthes passed, I'm thinking buying a pair if ls50 meta, and a second sub, and sell the R3. I prefer hearing music in 5.1 with the R3s dimmed than in stereo with the R3s, and that seems stupid to me (ls50 costed me 550 euros new ..).
I'm also looking at the ls60, but can't try them near my town. I'm curious if someone had the chance to compare to r3 meta/ ls50 and has an advice on the imaging aspect? If I can get the best of both worlds with them I would be very happy. Also they look quite nice ... of course they won't integrate painlessly in a 5.1 setup, would've been too easy ....
Have you experimented with different placement?But also my first impression was the sound was less floating, airy, imaged, than the ls50, and vocals were put back in the mix (still good but not jaw-dropping good as in the ls50). I put a ls50 as center channel and had thoses qualities and clarity back immediatly (althought not in stereo).