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

[meracus]

how big is your room and how much space between the walls?

4.5 x 4.1 … about 310 high
About 1m away from front walll and 1m to side walls
Roughly 2.8 metres in front of me

 

[pablolie]

Is that the consensus around here or a matter of personal opinion ?

I join the consensus. I think the LS50 is exceptional if you don't have a large room to fill. I use mine with a single sub xover-ed at 70Hz, and they sound better than my 25 year old, $20k towers - and indeed the imaging is a key strength. No doubt the R3 are and measure great, but as others said, it's about trade-offs: the ability to play louder with less distortion very often means you sacrifice some "finesse", especially if you're not the type to always crank the music to >95dB SPL.

 

[mj30250]

These are pretty different speakers, particularly from 2kHz to 5kHz where there's suddenly a lot more treble energy being thrown into the room by the LS50. As mentioned, taking in-room REW measurements would be helpful.

 

[meracus]

I join the consensus. I think the LS50 is exceptional if you don't have a large room to fill. I use mine with a single sub xover-ed at 70Hz, and they sound better than my 25 year old, $20k towers - and indeed the imaging is a key strength. No doubt the R3 are and measure great, but as others sad, it's about trade-offs: the ability to play louder with less distortion very often means you sacrifice some "finesse", especially if you're not the type to always crank the music to >95dB SPL.

So just adding a woofer and changing the shape of the cab killed the imaging to this extent …. Is this what the klippel test show ? Or are you also saying klippel tests don’t show imagining prowess ?

 

[meracus]

These are pretty different speakers, particularly from 2kHz to 5kHz where there's suddenly a lot more treble energy being thrown into the room by the LS50. As mentioned, taking in-room REW measurements would be helpful.


View attachment 353043

I will do … and report back

 

[Zapper]

These are pretty different speakers, particularly from 2kHz to 5kHz where there's suddenly a lot more treble energy being thrown into the room by the LS50. As mentioned, taking in-room REW measurements would be helpful.


View attachment 353043

I second this. The LS50 has an elevated response in the upper midrange (2-6kHz), with a big 4db peak in the 4-5KHz region. This is the "presence" region, where sibilants and other hissy sounds live. The ear is very sensitive to these frequencies and they are important in sensing sound direction. In addition the directivity indexes of the LS50 peak around 4kHz, indicating a wider pattern of dispersion at frequencies above it, so the upper presence region frequencies are not only louder but widely dispersed. This will give an boosted sense of imaging, at the expense of being rather tiring and unpleasant to listen to for those who are used to a neutral speaker. But all that's very subjective.

You can test this hypothesis by adding a boost in the same frequency range with your R3 Metas, and see if the sense of imaging is improved.

 

[Zapper]

So just adding a woofer and changing the shape of the cab killed the imaging to this extent …. Is this what the klippel test show ? Or are you also saying klippel tests don’t show imagining prowess ?

The Klippel doesn't measure imaging, but it gives some clues in the the frequency response and how the speaker disperses its energy at different frequencies that sometimes correlates with perceived imaging. Audio imaging is not well understood in general, in part because the complexity of speaker/room interactions, and in part because the biology and neurology of direction perception in human hearing is not fully understood.

 

[raindance]

Perhaps one of the new speakers is accidentally wired out of phase?

 

[Zapper]

No doubt the R3 are and measure great, but as others sad, it's about trade-offs: the ability to play louder with less distortion very often means you sacrifice some "finesse", especially if you're not the type to always crank the music to >95dB SPL.

I think the R3s win on "finesse" too - the measurements surely indicate they do. I suspect the preference you and the OP express for the LS50 are due to some rather large inaccuracies in frequency response and directivity that you find subjectively pleasing. I'm not criticizing that - the goal of this hobby is to be subjectively pleased, and different people will be pleased by different sounds.

 

[meracus]

I think the R3s win on "finesse" too - the measurements surely indicate they do. I suspect the preference you and the OP express for the LS50 are due to some rather large inaccuracies in frequency response and directivity that you find subjectively pleasing. I'm not criticizing that - the goal of this hobby is to be subjectively pleased, and different people will be pleased by different sounds.

The loss of the imaging is quite taxing is what I mean … the r3 plays louder , seems cleaner and have better bass when called upon … absolutely no doubt
But that sense of sound coming from all over is really great … shame to lose it
I was just after a cleaner mid and keep what I had … I gained bass and mid clarity and a SPL but I feel it’s a loss

 

[meracus]

Perhaps one of the new speakers is accidentally wired out of phase?

No no … you would have lost the bass in this instance … quite noticeable when you do that
It’s wired correctly

 

[pablolie]

I think the R3s win on "finesse" too - the measurements surely indicate they do. I suspect the preference you and the OP express for the LS50 are due to some rather large inaccuracies in frequency response and directivity that you find subjectively pleasing. I'm not criticizing that - the goal of this hobby is to be subjectively pleased, and different people will be pleased by different sounds.

I have never owned or heard the R3, so I hope nothing I wrote is seen as a "this is BETTER than that" statement.

The deviation for the "ideal" for the LS50 is not exaggerated looking at the measurements, perhaps 2-3dB, which while audible is not in any way extreme. I also -personally- think sibilance -the overaggressive sizzly think that exhausts- resides a bit higher in the Hz register. But that's just based on seat of the pants experience with speakers I have heard and which I also saw measurements for... but OTOH my listening experience was in real life rooms, and we know there also may be the possibility that the LS50 and R3 may interact differently with the OP's room.

 

[restorer-john]

So just adding a woofer and changing the shape of the cab killed the imaging to this extent …. Is this what the klippel test show ? Or are you also saying klippel tests don’t show imagining prowess ?

The Klippel is excellent for testing one speaker. It doesn't even know what stereophonic reproduction or imaging is. It doesn't have a brain.

 

[thewas]

The curved baffle of the LS50 offers an advantage in radiation which the quadratic R series tries to compensate with the shadow flare but still doesn't fully reach, this can be seen by comparing the early and full directivity indexes of the LS50 Meta (continuous lines): vs R3 Meta (dashed lines) (the old LS50 look worse there due to their poorer crossover):

 

[meracus]

The Klippel is excellent for testing one speaker. It doesn't even know what stereophonic reproduction or imaging is. It doesn't have a brain.

Sure , but can’t one correlate FR and perception of image like explained above

 

[Sal1950]

the goal of this hobby is to be subjectively pleased, and different people will be pleased by different sounds.

NO, the goal of this hobby is an accurate High Fidelity reproduction of the source.
If you prefer something different that's all well and good.
But it doesn't change the quest for High Fidelity, that has been the goal since day one.

 

[meracus]

The curved baffle of the LS50 offers an advantage in radiation which the quadratic R series tries to compensate with the shadow flare but still doesn't fully reach, this can be seen by comparing the early and full directivity indexes of the LS50 Meta (continuous lines): vs R3 Meta (dashed lines) (the old LS50 look worse there due to their poorer crossover):

So in essence I should be better off right ?

 

[Ciobi69]

Had the same expierience i had kef r3 Kali in 8 who are very similiar.then i bought the kef blade 2 and there it was the difference every thing was sounding as it should.ls50 +subs are a good idea,r3 would give more output and nothing more but depends on the necessitis

 

[DMill]

Sure , but can’t one correlate FR and perception of image like explained above

Imagine a bell curve. You may fall into the middle sections of preference based on measurements. Or you may be on the heads or tails of that curve. Measured results do accurately predict what most people like. If you’re on tails at least you are informed by those measurements to wanting a lively treble or deep bass.

 

[thewas]

So in essence I should be better off right ?

Theoretically from radiation and imaging point of view someone would be better off with a LS50 Meta vs a R3 Meta, on the other hand such is influenced by so many factors that your ears must decide what works better for you. But as said from others having the Uni-Q at the same height would help a generalisable comparison more.