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

[meracus]

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.

Yet the baffle of the 50 yields better radiation resulting in wider soundstage perception .. therefore klippel gives us valid results / meaningful results in soundstage perception ??
I thought you could draw a legit conclusion as to what a speaker can do using klippel .. I other words , klippel give accurate measurements and valid conclusions in brain generated results , it has enough computing power and team know how / Human Resources to act both in the acoustic and psychoacoustic domain … sure it has no human brain but has enough software “brain “ to predict with a high degree of confidence …… is it not ?
I will continue experimenting with position / data driven … and take it from there …
Thanks guys

 

[radix]

The dispersion patters are pretty different. These are the LS50 (left) and R3 Meta (right) from Erin's. The LS50 definitely has a wider horizontal and vertical pattern. You might try toeing the R3's out towards the walls to get more of an illusion of a wider image or toe them in for a more direct pattern for more detail with less reverb.

 

[meracus]

The dispersion patters are pretty different. These are the LS50 (left) and R3 Meta (right) from Erin's. The LS50 definitely has a wider horizontal and vertical pattern. You might try toeing the R3's out towards the walls to get more of an illusion of a wider image or toe them in for a more direct pattern for more detail with less reverb.

View attachment 353130

That’s what I thought … so klippel can help in drawing a conclusion re soundstage … an easy try … regarding above … is it that significant to impact perception that much ??

 

[voodooless]

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.

Well, then it should be easy to prove you’re right. This is a science forum… all I see here (not just from you) is a bunch of speculation and arguments form personal experience and incredulity. This doesn’t really bring us near a solution and it’s not science.

Research says that preference scores for single speakers translate excellently to stereo setups.

So what is left are a few hypotheses that would actually be testable:

1. Placement of the speaker: height of the tweeter or toe in/out. this will influence both direct as well as reflected sound
2. Differences in on-axis (or listening axis), where the LS50 is the least linear of the two, results in the perceived difference.
3. The LS50 is a bit wider overall, creating the difference

Or combinations of these. #3 can be played with, like @radix said. #2, can be experimented with using EQ. Make the response as close to the LS50 as you can. #1, is a matter of moving the speakers around a bit.

My uneducated guess is that hypothesis #2 will be the primary reason. Frequency response is simply the primary driver of how we perceive sound, and since radiation is still quite similar, my guess is that its influence is less in this case.

I for one, like the LS50 better when it’s EQ’ed a bit more linear (I like a bit more bass). In the end though, it may just be that you’re now very used to the LS50 sound. It's often hard to unlearn, and the question is if you should…? So if these things can help you bring back the old sound, plus some extras, go for it!

 

[thewas]

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.

The 165 mm woofer of the R3 Meta doesn't really play a significant role where the increased DI mainly happens as its crossed out at 420 Hz and above both have similar sized Uni-Q coaxial drivers (125 mm for the R3 Meta and 130 mm for the LS50 Meta), the differences in their directivity are mainly due to their baffle sizes and shapes.

 

[antcollinet]

That’s what I thought … so klippel can help in drawing a conclusion re soundstage … an easy try … regarding above … is it that significant to impact perception that much ??

Something else to consider.

Every time I buy a new piece of gear it sounds wrong. Then when I let it settle down it starts to sound as good as whatever I've replaced. This was certainly the case with my recently replaced AVR - which I also use for stereo music.

This is not burn in.

When we are listening to/for "how the gear sounds" rather than listening to "the music" it sounds different - and often wrong. What we hear is influenced by how we are listening. And we all do this when we buy new gear - of course we do.

It is worth trying - just for a few days - listening to the music without worrying about the sound stage. Don't pay it any attention. As your auditory system adapts to the minor differences in the sound field, you may find it comes back.

 

[meracus]

I have a week or 2 to play with … got Roon with eq so should be fun to replicate etc

 

[Music1969]

Bummer might need a new stand then !

Turn it upside down? Is tweeter then at ear level ?

 

[Tangband]

The 165 mm woofer of the R3 Meta doesn't really play a significant role where the increased DI mainly happens as its crossed out at 420 Hz and above both have similar sized Uni-Q coaxial drivers (125 mm for the R3 Meta and 130 mm for the LS50 Meta), the differences in their directivity are mainly due to their baffle sizes and shapes.

A crossover at 420 Hz is audible if its not perfect . And a passive crossover never is.
Also the drivers are not better than +-1 dB in similarity and in the r3 meta there are three of them .

 

[thewas]

A crossover at 420 Hz is audible if its not perfect . And a passive crossover never is.

That is a gross generalisation and I don't agree to it, especially when it comes to audibility.

Also the drivers are not better than +-1 dB in similarity and in the r3 meta there are three of them .

What do you mean with similarity, pair matching?

 

[Tangband]

That is a gross generalisation and I don't agree to it, especially when it comes to audibility.


What do you mean with similarity, pair matching?

Yes

 

[Tangband]

I have a week or 2 to play with … got Roon with eq so should be fun to replicate etc

Try the eq in ROON for your r3 Meta and set the peq at +2 dB at 1,7 kHz , Q = 3 . This is the most important frequency for doing some stereosystem kompensation .
You might be surprised or not .

 

[thewas]

Yes

R3 Meta pair matching was measured with superb 0.3 dB and also I don't see why it would be a bigger problem in a two way than a three way but rather the opposite as its easier to have a driver better controlled in a limited passband.
Edit: LS50 Meta pair matching confirms that as its a bit worse with 0.5 dB which is of course still a great value.

 

[Tangband]

Yet the baffle of the 50 yields better radiation resulting in wider soundstage perception .. therefore klippel gives us valid results / meaningful results in soundstage perception ??
I thought you could draw a legit conclusion as to what a speaker can do using klippel .. I other words , klippel give accurate measurements and valid conclusions in brain generated results , it has enough computing power and team know how / Human Resources to act both in the acoustic and psychoacoustic domain … sure it has no human brain but has enough software “brain “ to predict with a high degree of confidence …… is it not ?
I will continue experimenting with position / data driven … and take it from there …
Thanks guys

The klippel system can not measure how holografic the system will sound in a stereo system . As stated already - the perceived stereo soundstage is formed inside the listeners brain and cant be measured by a microphone , just the way we cant measure why perfume smells good .

 

[Pearljam5000]

Just get the Genelec Ones which are like LS50 on steroids and be done

 

[Triliza]

Edit: Oops, sorry, missed the META thingy...

From Amir's listening test:

Alas, once again subjective feeling was low. My standard routine is to cycle through my reference clips that I have selected during all my normal listening to sound superb on my Revel Salon 2 Speakers. Sadly hardly any of them sounded all that good here. Yes, the highs were there. The lows at times were there. But overall experience was unexciting and unengaging for lack of a better word.

EDIT: later testing showed that the room mode at about 105 Hz was impacting the tonality of the speaker. Once I filtered that, the sound was very good. I have since made this part of the protocol.

From Erin's listening test:

The data does not indicate any resonances from anything. It is quite a neutral response, aside from the lifted treble on-axis. Moving to about ±10° horizontally and vertically, the treble is slightly reduced to provide a more neutral signature. For that reason, I would encourage you to experiment with toe-in and placement. You may find you like being on-axis or you may find you prefer the speakers toed in or out slightly. However, I would not go beyond ±20° as the response begins to drop above 8kHz.

• Along that same token, I find these speakers to not do well in a “dead” room. They did much better in my living room than they did in my home theater, where the latter has copious sound absorption throughout.

• The layering of these speakers is unmatched, to date. The soundstage isn’t terribly wide (I prefer a wider soundstage). However, the layering and the overall depth of the soundstage is incredible. The soundstage extends deep from front to back (with the right source music, of course). It is one of my favorite things about these speakers. A good example of this is in Fleetwood Mac’s “The Chain” as well as Phillip Bailey’s “Easy Lover” (at the 3:00 mark, where Phil Collins gets down on the drums).

• While using the speakers full-range is OK, I found that when I added a subwoofer (SVS SB-2000 Pro and SB-3000, separately), the entire sound became immensely more enveloping. Somehow, it even seems to increase the overall sense of “space” these speakers provide with the right recording. For that reason, I do suggest a subwoofer with these speakers. I suggest a crossover in the neighborhood of 60-80Hz. I’ve had good luck with the SVS subwoofers I’m currently reviewing and with their built-in DSP, I was able to resolve a couple room modes easily and take the system to a new level of fidelity.

Room modes, toe-in and placement, as suggested already try to take same measurements and experiment with EQ.

Edit: Oops, sorry, missed the META thingy...

 

[Zapper]

The 165 mm woofer of the R3 Meta doesn't really play a significant role where the increased DI mainly happens as its crossed out at 420 Hz and above both have similar sized Uni-Q coaxial drivers (125 mm for the R3 Meta and 130 mm for the LS50 Meta), the differences in their directivity are mainly due to their baffle sizes and shapes.

You're right. I got the woofer dimension instead of the Uni-Q dimension for the R3.

 

[terryforsythe]

The ls50’s imaging benefits from not having the extra woofer.

Is it your perspective that having the woofer adds to the diffraction by disrupting the baffle face below the concentric driver? I envision this could be the case. Perhaps that is why on the Blades and LS60 KEF moved the woofers to the sides, but I don't know.

 

[meracus]

Just get the Genelec Ones which are like LS50 on steroids and be done

You reckon ? Is the ones like a ls50 on steroid ? What would be the benefit .. remember I play not too loud .. I would say 75 at 3 metres is the loudest .. I routinely listen at less admittedly peak taken from a phone … but I’m seeing 60-64 at night
Where would I benefit ? How ?

 

[RobL]

You reckon ? Is the ones like a ls50 on steroid ? What would be the benefit .. remember I play not too loud .. I would say 75 at 3 metres is the loudest .. I routinely listen at less admittedly peak taken from a phone … but I’m seeing 60-64 at night
Where would I benefit ? How ?

Three-way speaker, like the R3, so less IMD. Also a smooth continuous baffle, like the LS50. Best of both combined into one speaker.