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

[ExPerfectionist]

Sounds like you are just noticing the difference between your previous less-accurate / unique sound signature speaker and the newer, flatter / more accurate speaker and without the extra energy and presence in the 2K-6K range.

And both look like they could use a nice sub to pair with.

 

[Jaxjax]

If you have the ability to return them I would. No need to suffer .. Get something you like then fine tune with EQ.

 

[312elements]

Some of these responses are just absurd. Like really really absurd. The combination of the point source speaker with the heavily radiused baffle are the main reasons that LS50 images so well. You're not hearing things. Your brain is not playing tricks on you. It has zero to do with the frequency response or any of the other other nonsense being touted and you're not wrong for preferring it. This isn't complicated.

 

[Ron Texas]

The R3 has a lower frequency extension than the LS50 and it´s more linear in the output, but there should be more similarities than differences. In essence, the R3 should be doing a bit more than the LS50 and the same the LS50 does but better accomplished.

Amir and Erin have both measured the LS50 and the R3, so that is a good baseline comparison. However, they are not playing anechoically, they are doing so in your room, so interactions can be quite different even if it shouldn´t be night and day at least on paper.

My guess is the curved baffle of the LS50 makes a big difference. By the way, reviewers say the original and Meta LS50's sound the same except for the bump at 2.5kHz being turned into a slight dip.

 

[Zapper]

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):

I think a bigger factor is that the R3 Meta has a 165mm driver and the LS50 Meta has a 130mm driver, so it starts to beam at a lower frequency with rising DI. Compare to the LS60 with a 100mm driver, it has wider dispersion and better controlled DI than both of the above.

 

[Zapper]

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.

People have different goals though. There is no official committee that sets goals for the audiophile hobby. If someone were to force the standard of high fidelity on the industry, most of it would be out of business! That said, I agree with you that High Fidelity should be the goal

 

[rynberg]

Swapped the old ls50 for an r3 meta …. And I feel the hang in the space sound had shrunk
The holographic properties of the ls50 are no longer here ….. is this an illusion ??
Any thoughts on why this is observed ? Is it the case anyways … the r3 meta images worse then the ls50

I didn't read all the comments, but the LS50 Meta has a significantly wider radiation pattern by 10-20 degrees than the R3 Meta. Depending on the exact geometry of your listening room, the LS50 might be lighting up the sidewalls where the R3 is not...which would make the soundstage from the LS50 noticeably wider than the R3. This factor is exactly why I chose the Revel Perfoma3 over the KEF R-series.

I expect if you spent more time listening that you would find the R3 to have a slightly deeper and possibly more precise soundstage than the LS50. But if you prefer a wider soundstage, then yes, the R3 is not the best choice for you.

 

[pablolie]

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

"image" is basically a combination of frequency accuracy and timing accuracy. Many things influence the outcome.

I think with some work you could get the R3 to respond similar to the LS50 you're used to, but without room calibration aka Dirac you may be hunting in the dark. Unless you want to go down that road, why not just be happy with what you enjoy?

One thing I did wrong as an audio fan was upgrading without data - for upgrades that were always going to be marginal.

In my professional high-tech life, unless something is guaranteed to provide a 3x to 4x benefit, no one looks at the new stuff and keeps what they have. Those are brutal numbers to drive an upgrade cycle, and we're talking extremely business-relevant (and potentially lifesaving) gear. We have been far away from that in audio SQ for many years... sometimes the magic is in finding what magically interacts with your personal preferences and your room - and if the results are what you were dreaming about, why question it because some measurements show the new gear may possibly-ideally be 2% better measuring?

Mind you, took me 40 years to get there :-D

 

[terryforsythe]

Swapped the old ls50 for an r3 meta …. And I feel the hang in the space sound had shrunk
The holographic properties of the ls50 are no longer here ….. is this an illusion ??
Any thoughts on why this is observed ? Is it the case anyways … the r3 meta images worse then the ls50

I have not heard either of those speakers. If my memory serves me correctly, the R3 measures better, but the baffle on the LS50 looks to me to be better designed to reduce diffraction.

Many years ago, probably in the late 80s or early 90s, I played around with minimizing diffraction with different baffles. The baffles where diffraction mitigating measures were implemented imaged better than baffles with hard 90 deg. edges.

 

[moonthink]

I might suggest -- continuing to play with placement. I audition and change speakers quite often, and best placement/height/angles for those speakers vary as well.
Also, give your ears time to adjust. We get used to what we hear, and it takes time for the brain/ears to adapt to a different sound signature.
In the end, you may still prefer the old speakers, and that's fine, but don't be too quick to judge.

 

[napilopez]

I would like to echo the possibility that speaker height affects things more than you think. I remember comparing some speakers once and I thought I heard a major change in imaging quality that turned out to have more to do with height. Both speakers sounded worse when at the height of a some furniture in the room. As soon as I elevated them a few inches to above the furniture, the sound cleared up. Playing white noise made the sound difference even clearer at different heights. It was subtle, but consistently noticeable. It was like I had diffusers or absorbers, except it was a shelf full or records.

Another very subtle thing about the LS50 vs R3 (meta or not), is that there is a smoother roll-off past 90 degrees, as @thewas mentioned. Whether this really has an effect for every listening space ehhh idk, but it might have an effect in some spaces. I did think the LS50W and LS50 Meta imaged slightly better than the R3, and I've heard some people echo similar thoughts. I've also heard people voice the opposite, but usually the former. Could just be a sighted bias thing with the full point source vibe, but still.

On that note though, you might want to try angling the R3s a bit different from the metas too.

At the end of the day measurements are a super useful guide, but there are always individual room factors and preferences that influence things.

 

[312elements]

Please do not waste money on room correction trying to solve this problem. Nothing against room correction, but in this case it would be like using the stream from a garden hose to hammer a nail.

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The LS50 is known for creating a holographic or 3 dimensional music space. Its main limitation is maximum output which can be improved a lot with subs, if you can get the subs integrated right, which isn't easy.

That what DLBC is for.

 

[raindance]

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

I wasn't suggesting you wired it wrong, rather that the factory may have wired the top drivers backwards in one of the speakers.

 

[pablolie]

Please do not waste money on room correction trying to solve this problem. Nothing against room correction, but in this case it would be like using the stream from a garden hose to hammer a nail.

That is a comment that requires further explanation. I am intrigued why you are so categoric about the second part of the second sentence. How do you establish the "case"?

 

[phoenixdogfan]

It may have something to do with the dispersion as well. The R3's are about 10 degrees narrower in dispersion than the LS 50's and are probably about the narrowest pattern in Kef's line up. This fact alone might make the LS 50's seem more panoramic than the R3's.

 

[312elements]

That is a comment that requires further explanation. I am intrigued why you are so categoric about the second part of the second sentence. How do you establish the "case"?

You can’t correct for diffraction. It’s an inherent benefit of the cabinet design. No amount of EQ is going to change the position drivers. They’re not concentric. It’s not the frequency response or the dispersion that provide the pinpoint imaging of the ls50. It’s lack of diffraction and the concentric driver.

The design objective is the R3 was different. It was to have a flatter frequency response and deeper base. They achieved their objective at the cost of imaging. No amount of room correction can change that.

 

[terryforsythe]

You can’t correct for diffraction. It’s an inherent benefit of the cabinet design. No amount of EQ is going to change the position drivers. They’re not concentric. It’s not the frequency response or the dispersion that provide the pinpoint imaging of the ls50. It’s lack of diffraction and the concentric driver.

The R3 Meta has a concentric midrange/tweeter, and it crosses low enough to the woofer to otherwise be a non-issue. But otherwise I agree, the LS50s probably are imaging better due to the LS50 baffle design.

 

[312elements]

The R3 Meta has a concentric midrange/tweeter, and it crosses low enough to the woofer to otherwise be a non-issue. But otherwise I agree, the LS50s probably are imaging better due to the LS50 baffle design.

Non issue is different from being interchangeable. There’s nothing wrong with the R3. The ls50’s imaging benefits from not having the extra woofer.

 

[Tangband]

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 only test one speaker and give no valid results what happens inside a brain with a stereo setup.
The stereo image illusion is created inside the brain - it cant be measured.