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

[Digital_Thor]

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

Oh sorry... You meant dispersion, not physically

 

[ViperDom]

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.

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)

 

[meracus]

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 SAM mine on devialet and play low volume mainly late night listening so 60-65 …
I have a nice Newmann 805 about to take on those duties … and hpf etc .. should have done that in the first instance
R3M is now returning .. shame , a nice upgrade from the LS in dynamics / loudness / and I feel even cleaner but feels very “ front firing “
That would save me a few quid , I’m done

 

[terryforsythe]

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.”

View attachment 353522

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.

 

[312elements]

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 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.

 

[ViperDom]

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.

I came to a similar conclusion.
Wanted to go with X@100Hz but settled on 80Hz(LR 48dB)
Subs are currently located for multiple seat FR consistency so lower X is needed more-so than stereo positioned subs.

I do plan to eventually create a preset with 60Hz X for personal listening at lower levels, but was doing a lot of trials/tweaking when my LS50Meta's came in a couple months ago and just wanted to get to a stopping point so we could enjoy them for a bit!

 

[Vacceo]

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.

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!

 

[Tangband]

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.

 

[312elements]

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.

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.

 

[Tangband]

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.

If you start a building thread it would be very interesting to follow

 

[Digital_Thor]

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.

That looks like a wavecor driver.... down to every specs .. interesting.

SHOP | css-audio

www.css-audio.com

Wavecor WF182BD03 midwoofer | HiFiCompass

What is on the test bench? WF182BD03 is 4 Ohm (its 8 Ohm version - WF182BD04) midwoofer with a chassis size of 7", paper cone and with motor based on a ferrite magnet. All of Wavecor speakers labeled with "BD" letters belong to the "Balanced Drive" technology group, in which proprietary...

hificompass.com

 

[Usatencu]

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.

I have dali oberon 3 and want to upgrade to kef 3 meta, do you think it's worth it?

 

[nygafre]

I have dali oberon 3 and want to upgrade to kef 3 meta, do you think it's worth it?

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.

 

[Moonbase]

I have owned both and still have the ls50 meta's. That is not to say the R3's are bad they are not. Simply the LS50 meta's work as my office near field monitors. The latter work very well in that configuration, the R3's are better in a bigger room, thu you do loose some of that imaging, but correctly positioned should still be decent.

 

[Usatencu]

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.

Thanks a lot!!!

 

[Xoxo]

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 ....

 

[terryforsythe]

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 ....

Thank you for explaining your impressions of the LS50 Meta vs the R3.

The design of the baffle on the LS50 looks like it will perform much better than the R3's baffle with regard to mitigating diffraction. That probably is why the LS50 images better.

To get the best of both worlds, I would like to see KEF produce a stand-mount speaker using the LS50 baffle design for the concentric driver, and two side-firing woofers. It would be like a stand-mount version of the LS60.

 

[Sal1950]

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).

Have you experimented with different placement?
Much of all imaging depends on placement.

 

[dshreter]

It's entirely possible the difference in imaging is imagined... I mean it could be there, but taking a couple speakers out of service and putting new ones in their place is as many know fraught with challenges.

I'm not suggesting OP should keep speakers that are not delivering a perceived improvement in quality. Save your money. But I also don't think the experience is reliable enough that it warrants reverse engineering. Or if doing so, psychological factors also have to be accounted for, for example R3 is physically much larger, so that can also contribut to things appearing less airy.

 

[Xoxo]

Yeah I know, it could be due to my poor understanding of audio matters, or to my room, but seeing that many people have what seems to be a very similar feeling on the question, make me think that it has enought probability to be a real "thing".

Also I mostly listen quite near field, I'd say 2-2.5 meter from the speakers.

Of course I tried different placements but mostly putting them far or close to the wall (up to 1 meter away). It does change the overall sound but not that much to me.