Kali Audio LP-UNF

[Cool Runnings]

I'm open to any advices - I haven't decided what to buy yet, so I'm grateful for your comment. I want to sell my Heco Auora 300s and buy the Kali Audio LP-UNF because I think they might sound better because of my room setup (small room, speakers directly placed against the wall, small distance to the speakers). As they only have a 4,5"-woofer, I think I would miss deep bass - therefore I want to keep using my current subwoofer. I wish the Kalis had a sub-out - as they don't I thought about the Fosi Audio...

Yes LP UNFs are great for near field listen and great value. If your priorities are good DAC preamp and sub out then Wiim Ultra seems to be a great option with streaming capability. But it’s got no airplay and no power amp. If you don’t want or need streaming but want sub out and both preamp and amp options then it will probably need to be a bigger sized receiver. I can’t think of good value small sized options. I’m skeptical of Fosi BT30D because it only has a single preamp outlet and no sub out either. It’s use case is mostly as a power amp for passive speakers not so much for powered or active speakers.

 

[Cool Runnings]

I'm open to any advices - I haven't decided what to buy yet, so I'm grateful for your comment. I want to sell my Heco Auora 300s and buy the Kali Audio LP-UNF because I think they might sound better because of my room setup (small room, speakers directly placed against the wall, small distance to the speakers). As they only have a 4,5"-woofer, I think I would miss deep bass - therefore I want to keep using my current subwoofer. I wish the Kalis had a sub-out - as they don't I thought about the Fosi Audio...

Yes LP UNFs are great for near field listen and great value. If your priorities are good DAC preamp and sub out then Wiim Ultra seems to be a great option with streaming capability. But it’s got no airplay and no power amp. If you don’t want or need streaming but want sub out and both preamp and amp options then it will probably need to be a bigger sized receiver. I can’t think of good value small sized options. I’m skeptical of Fosi BT30D because it only has a single preamp outlet and no sub out either. Its use case is mostly as a power amp for passive speakers not so much for powered or active speakers.

 

[TechnoTroll101]

TBH I'd love to pair the Kali Audio LP-UNF with the WS-6.2, but it's too expensive in total. (349€ + 599€ ~ 950€ in Germany) A Wiim Ultra would also cost 399€, that's why I had my eye on a Fosi Audio amp. Best would be if I could directly connect my current subwoofer with the Kalis...

 

[Cool Runnings]

TBH I'd love to pair the Kali Audio LP-UNF with the WS-6.2, but it's too expensive in total. (349€ + 599€ ~ 950€ in Germany) A Wiim Ultra would also cost 399€, that's why I had my eye on a Fosi Audio amp. Best would be if I could directly connect my current subwoofer with the Kalis...

Sorry I just want to make it clear. If you get active/powered speakers like the LP UNFs and pair them with active/powered subwoofer then all you need is a decent preamp/dac + streamer (optional) with enough outputs to connect to your speakers and sub. Wiim Pro Plus can work well in this set up for good price. You can use a RCA splitter to connect the Line out to both your active speakers and sub. You don’t have to worry about needing power amplification for your active/powered speakers and sub. Of course if you can get the Wiim Ultra it has dedicated sub out and sub management software plus more connectivity and user options.

 

[TechnoTroll101]

Sorry I just want to make it clear. If you get active/powered speakers like the LP UNFs and pair them with active/powered subwoofer then all you need is a decent preamp/dac + streamer (optional) with enough outputs to connect to your speakers and sub. Wiim Pro Plus can work well in this set up for good price. You can use a RCA splitter to connect the Line out to both your active speakers and sub. You don’t have to worry about needing power amplification for your active/powered speakers and sub. Of course if you can get the Wiim Ultra it has dedicated sub out and sub management software plus more connectivity and user options.

Alright, then let's hope for a discount for the Kalis and the Wiim Ultra soon. ^^

 

[killerq82]

Hello everyone, reading the discussion with interest I signed up here to share my experience, I'm from Italy, sorry for my English. A week ago I bought the LP-UNF, connected via usb-c to usb-a motherboard but I heard popping noise when play/pause or start/end of a song on YouTube, Spotify and Tidal. I contacted support and found them very kind, informing me that they solved the problem with the new firmware. The problem is that they still don't know when the software that allows the update will be distributed because the test with a few beta testers didn't go well. The operator told me about the end of the year, beginning of the new year. He advised me to replace the speakers for free rather than wait for the software to be released. For the rest, speakers sounds great and noticed a notable improvement compared to the Edifier 1850DB.

 

[Simon1961]

I just read all the comments, very helpful, packed with info.
Are their op-amps on the board we can roll/experiment with? I only ask, as I've seen people make good-sounding standalone class D amps sound even better.
Also, has anyone seen a pic of the board online? I can't find any.

 

[AnalogSteph]

Are there* op-amps on the board we can roll/experiment with?

NO.

After @NTTY had about 1/3 of his measurements in an opamp rolling exercise rendered worthless by a dodgy socket, I wouldn't want any in any kind of price-sensitive product either. Added cost and worse reliability, what's not to like? So unless your clientele is gullible audiophools specifically asking for it, any sane product designer would have them soldered in and be done with it. Besides, how much better than human hearing does it have to get in a product like this, with driver distortion figures looking like they are? Lipstick on a pig and stuff.

 

[sejarzo]

NO.

After @NTTY had about 1/3 of his measurements in an opamp rolling exercise rendered worthless by a dodgy socket, I wouldn't want any in any kind of price-sensitive product either. Added cost and worse reliability, what's not to like? So unless your clientele is gullible audiophools specifically asking for it, any sane product designer would have them soldered in and be done with it. Besides, how much better than human hearing does it have to get in a product like this, with driver distortion figures looking like they are? Lipstick on a pig and stuff.

Absolutely, and I am certain that would void the warranty. I will never, ever understand why folks trust unknown listeners' ears versus objective measurements...especially when it comes to opamps.

 

[GratefulDAC]

The THD+N contributed by that chip is only a small fraction of the THD from the drivers even at 75-80 dB SPL.

From my POV, it's entirely acceptable as the sound is great, and the total lack of hiss at my arm's length of 0.78m (LOL I did measure it!) is remarkable. Barely detectable with my ear almost touching the front baffle at the tweeter with volume up to max.

I have an Onkyo TX-SR875 with a post-extended warranty fried HDMI board that I have used as an integrated amp. It's rated at 0.06% THD at rated power, so SINAD is no better than 64 dB, and probably only 60 dB at 5 watts if it follows the typical slope from full power down to 5 watts. I discern no audible difference when driving Q150s versus what is now considered the underperforming SMSL A300 that Amir measured at 81 dB SINAD--other than the Onkyo results in less hiss at the tweeter, believe it or not.

There's also no discernable difference between feeding the Onkyo from the RCAs on a Topping D10 into a line input versus coax from the D10 into the Onkyo's digital input.

I'm just as guilty as anyone here on getting hung up on the numbers for DACs and amps, but reality is that transducers are 99% of the "problem" now.

Indeed, the DAC is inside of the Class D chip TAS5805M. It's not separately speced. The amp has about a 70 SINAD...Should be plenty. A better external DAC is pointless since everything gets digitized anyway.

UNF's drivers have significantly higher IMD and overall distortion when compared to that DAC. A bookshelf speaker of this size usually have about more than 3% intermodulation distortion, especially while playing bass-heavy music at around 80dB. The distortion coming from the drivers will far exceed that of the DAC, easily masking any distortion that the DAC contributes.

Listening Test

www.klippel.de

I'd suggest testing your own ability to hear distortion. Most people cannot discern distortion levels beyond -40dB when listening to music. Hearing distortion with simple tones is easier. Choose the test stimulus with L(x) if you want, L(x) exhibits more IMD than other test samples. Post your results here if you want.

Well this is a bummer, especially when there is no toslink of spdif connection to use with my Wiim Pro, so if I want to use that (for synchronized playback with other rooms-something that has been elusive for me with Airplay2 or Sonos), I have to add whatever ADC and DAC is included in a $100 speaker? This is especially true, considering that I planned to use this with a topping d50 III. This is very confusing to me. In a forum and site that is so concerned with SINAD, we now are holding that SNRs of 60 dB are acceptable because the drivers produce more distortion? Why have we been obsessing on higher SINADs on DAC if they do not make any difference? How have there been so many subjective assessments that the sound was better with higher quality DACs? How did they hear any difference if the distortion of the transducers superseded is own? Am I missing something?

I mean I understand the logic, but it seems faulty, no offense intended. I don't see why anyone would want a speaker that could not produce the highest sampled music. Why do we seek MQA, why do we listen to Tidal? While I hate thinking of spending $1500 on Genelec 8030s, I rather do that and know I have a speaker that can produce the sound without DSP. Buy once, cry once. I will be listening to whatever I pick for at least 10 years, so $5 a month really is not much. I was really hoping to spend less, but even the KEF LS50 don't seem close. I could deal with a little worse on directivity and frequency response, but this seems like a deal breaker for me. Its sad because I got excited when some you tubers were comparing this to the other aforementioned speakers. Of course price=quality, but sometimes you can get great value while coming close as I find the higher you go with AV equipment the great the law of diminishing returns.

I can agree with that. I noticed a very clear difference when listening to the Q-Acoustics M20 via USB and with an external DAC, of course in favor of the better quality of the external ESS Saber DAC. It was impossible to listen to the M20 with pleasure on the internal DAC. The difference was very, very big. And I really realize that from a technical point of view there shouldn't be that much of a difference, but I can't fool my hearing

This seems to contradict the above. I believe I read 2 people claiming this on this thread.

The LP-UNF uses a DSP crossover, so inputting your audio digitally via USB will give you cleaner audio as it removes one D->A and one A->D conversion from your chain.

Since the DSP most likely runs at 24/48 internally, you probably do not get true 192kHz playback anyway, no matter if you're using USB or RCA.

Even if the DSP ran at 192kHz, or the analog inputs were connected directly to the internal amplifiers, you would not get higher sound quality when playing 192kHz content.

That's because the audible information stored in an audio track is completely identical between a 48kHz and 192kHz version.

All that the 192kHz version adds is potentially some ultrasonic noise.

This ultrasonic noise has no effect on the audible contents of the track and serves no purpose.

This contradicts all I learned in psychoacoustics during my schooling as an audiologist and audio engineer. This is not just about frequencies, but also percussive elements. I was found that the acuity of the ear is way above 48 kHz as far as timing differences, so there is that. Also, more samples gives you better resolution of sound waves which, as we all know, can be quite complex. I know I have correctly picked the 96 kHz mastering of the same recording many times in blind tests, with many different examples spanning all types of music, but my hearing is very attentive even with a 40 db loss at some frequencies (if you attend well, you hear more, believe it or not). If your statement was true, why, pray-tell, do we have so many pieces of equipment on the consumer and professional level that exceed 48 kHz? I am happy to read any information you have that proves your assertion. I am open to learn new things, but I am dubious.

 

[staticV3]

I know I have correctly picked the 96 kHz mastering of the same recording many times in blind tests

Share one example please, including the files and ABX Comparator checksum.

If your statement was true, why, pray-tell, do we have so many pieces of equipment on the consumer and professional level that exceed 48 kHz?

Because consumers and professionals alike are willing to pay extra for what they believe results in higher audio quality, irrespective of any real differences in audio quality.

I am happy to read any information you have that proves your assertion

This is like asking for proof that bigfoot does not exist.

I can send you thousands of pictures of empty forests (=tests showing no perceptible difference) and you could still claim that the proof is incomplete because I didn't check that one spot (=some other test with some other test subject).

Proof of nonexistence is therefore impossible and searching for it a fool's errand.

The deciding piece of evidence is a proof of existence, which in this case means a successful ABX test of 48 vs 96kHz, which would be on you to provide.

 

[Blockader]

Well this is a bummer, especially when there is no toslink of spdif connection to use with my Wiim Pro, so if I want to use that (for synchronized playback with other rooms-something that has been elusive for me with Airplay2 or Sonos), I have to add whatever ADC and DAC is included in a $100 speaker? This is especially true, considering that I planned to use this with a topping d50 III. This is very confusing to me. In a forum and site that is so concerned with SINAD, we now are holding that SNRs of 60 dB are acceptable because the drivers produce more distortion? Why have we been obsessing on higher SINADs on DAC if they do not make any difference? How have there been so many subjective assessments that the sound was better with higher quality DACs? How did they hear any difference if the distortion of the transducers superseded is own? Am I missing something?

I mean I understand the logic, but it seems faulty, no offense intended. I don't see why anyone would want a speaker that could not produce the highest sampled music. Why do we seek MQA, why do we listen to Tidal? While I hate thinking of spending $1500 on Genelec 8030s, I rather do that and know I have a speaker that can produce the sound without DSP. Buy once, cry once. I will be listening to whatever I pick for at least 10 years, so $5 a month really is not much. I was really hoping to spend less, but even the KEF LS50 don't seem close. I could deal with a little worse on directivity and frequency response, but this seems like a deal breaker for me. Its sad because I got excited when some you tubers were comparing this to the other aforementioned speakers. Of course price=quality, but sometimes you can get great value while coming close as I find the higher you go with AV equipment the great the law of diminishing returns.

This seems to contradict the above. I believe I read 2 people claiming this on this thread.

This contradicts all I learned in psychoacoustics during my schooling as an audiologist and audio engineer. This is not just about frequencies, but also percussive elements. I was found that the acuity of the ear is way above 48 kHz as far as timing differences, so there is that. Also, more samples gives you better resolution of sound waves which, as we all know, can be quite complex. I know I have correctly picked the 96 kHz mastering of the same recording many times in blind tests, with many different examples spanning all types of music, but my hearing is very attentive even with a 40 db loss at some frequencies (if you attend well, you hear more, believe it or not). If your statement was true, why, pray-tell, do we have so many pieces of equipment on the consumer and professional level that exceed 48 kHz? I am happy to read any information you have that proves your assertion. I am open to learn new things, but I am dubious.

I recommend revisiting the material on auditory masking from your studies, as it covers key principles in distortion perception. If you need a refresher, here’s a helpful video:

.

Total Harmonic Distortion alone doesn’t fully capture the audibility of distortion. What’s more important is how close the distortion products are to the fundamental frequency and the loudness of the fundamental itself. Louder sounds can mask quieter ones at nearby frequencies, depending on their relative loudness.

Here’s an example I often give: Even without accounting for auditory masking, distortion at -110dB while listening at 85dB is basically at -25dB. That’s about the same volume as the faint sound of water pipes from neighbors 3 floors down or even the next house. Have you heard of the sound of flowing water 3 floors below before?

In conclusion, just because I’m a member of this forum doesn’t mean I agree with every point made by the owner. For me, the most important quality in an amplifier is reliability. After that, low noise levels have the highest priority for me, provided that distortion products remain below roughly -80dB.

 

[GratefulDAC]

I recommend revisiting the material on auditory masking from your studies, as it covers key principles in distortion perception. If you need a refresher, here’s a helpful video:

.

Total Harmonic Distortion alone doesn’t fully capture the audibility of distortion. What’s more important is how close the distortion products are to the fundamental frequency and the loudness of the fundamental itself. Louder sounds can mask quieter ones at nearby frequencies, depending on their relative loudness.

Here’s an example I often give: Even without accounting for auditory masking, distortion at -110dB while listening at 85dB is basically at -25dB. That’s about the same volume as the faint sound of water pipes from neighbors 3 floors down or even the next house. Have you heard of the sound of flowing water 3 floors below before?

In conclusion, just because I’m a member of this forum doesn’t mean I agree with every point made by the owner. For me, the most important quality in an amplifier is reliability. After that, low noise levels have the highest priority for me, provided that distortion products remain below roughly -80dB.

Thank you. I will listen to this, I probably have already, but I am aware of masking. I use it every day when I test patients. You would be surprised what some can hear even at -10 dB SNR. But I do get your point, that we will not hear one form of distortion because it is masked by the other. I don't need to watch this to realize that. Still this does not address the fact that distortion is additive. You are adding distortion to distortion. Yes, I will not be able to hear the distortion of the topping (of course), or the LP-UNF crossover, but they will add to the distortion of the signal you hear for they are being reproduced by the speaker. Distortion colors sound.

Share one example please, including the files and ABX Comparator checksum.


Because consumers and professionals alike are willing to pay extra for what they believe results in higher audio quality, irrespective of any real differences in audio quality.


This is like asking for proof that bigfoot does not exist.

I can send you thousands of pictures of empty forests (=tests showing no perceptible difference) and you could still claim that the proof is incomplete because I didn't check that one spot (=some other test with some other test subject).

Proof of nonexistence is therefore impossible and searching for it a fool's errand.

The deciding piece of evidence is a proof of existence, which in this case means a successful ABX test of 48 vs 96kHz, which would be on you to provide.

I am not going to jump through hoops to prove something to you. I know what I am doing and how to do blind tests. Sorry if you cannot hear the difference but I, and other audiophiles I have had over, do. Repeatedly. Believe it or not. I had my doubts which is why I have done this experiment at least 4 times in the last 20 years. Each time higher kHz was found by a majority of subjects, some of which were not audiophiles.

Wow, you are assuming you know more than many many engineers and believe they have all been duped by marketing. What a low opinion you have of them.

I am not asking you to prove a negative, I am asking you to present some empirical evidence from your research that provides data that supports your argument. Here is something to prove mine:
https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/artic...e-Two-Click-Threshold?redirectedFrom=fulltext

If a human can hear two clicks apart to 10 microseconds that translates to 100 kHz. So when it comes to transients, 96 kHz does make a difference. That is not getting into the resolution of the actual sound wave. Believe me I would love for sampling rate not to make a difference. It would have saved me thousands when I invested in my apogee DACs in the early 2000s. But maybe I am just a mark with a doctorate.

 

[Jimbob54]

Thank you. I will listen to this, I probably have already, but I am aware of masking. I use it every day when I test patients. You would be surprised what some can hear even at -10 dB SNR. But I do get your point, that we will not hear one form of distortion because it is masked by the other. I don't need to watch this to realize that. Still this does not address the fact that distortion is additive. You are adding distortion to distortion. Yes, I will not be able to hear the distortion of the topping (of course), or the LP-UNF crossover, but they will add to the distortion of the signal you hear for they are being reproduced by the speaker. Distortion colors sound.

I am not going to jump through hoops to prove something to you. I know what I am doing and how to do blind tests. Sorry if you cannot hear the difference but I, and other audiophiles I have had over, do. Repeatedly. Believe it or not. I had my doubts which is why I have done this experiment at least 4 times in the last 20 years. Each time higher kHz was found by a majority of subjects, some of which were not audiophiles.

Wow, you are assuming you know more than many many engineers and believe they have all been duped by marketing. What a low opinion you have of them.

I am not asking you to prove a negative, I am asking you to present some empirical evidence from your research that provides data that supports your argument. Here is something to prove mine:
https://pubs.aip.org/asa/jasa/artic...e-Two-Click-Threshold?redirectedFrom=fulltext

If a human can hear two clicks apart to 10 microseconds that translates to 100 kHz. So when it comes to transients, 96 kHz does make a difference. That is not getting into the resolution of the actual sound wave. Believe me I would love for sampling rate not to make a difference. It would have saved me thousands when I invested in my apogee DACs in the early 2000s. But maybe I am just a mark with a doctorate.

I think that's enough of a digression from the subject of the thread . If you wish to continue this you can create a new thread and I can move this exchange in there or there will be other threads that cover the same ground , especially on the benefits of higher sample rates .

 

[sejarzo]

Hmmm....I have questions....

What do we know about the performance of the Class D amps in those Genelec speakers in and of themselves rather than as part of the entire system? I think that is germane to the comparison of a $1500 pair of speakers to a $300 pair of speakers. For all we know, they could be fairly similar.

How much content above 22 kHz is present in 96kHz recordings that isn't just the noise from the microphones plus the preamps etc. in the recording chain?

All I know is that for $300, I haven't heard any monitor of similar size that performs as well. If I want to hear every detail, I use my DCA headphones.

 

[GratefulDAC]

@Jimbob54, understood. That rabbit hole probably has been explored many times here as elsewhere. I have read many a thread.

I question how the use of this chip in this speaker may negatively impact the analogue input signal. I thought it strange that more were not mentioning this, especially considering what I have assessed as the esoteric predilections of this forum.

Maybe I should just worry that "it just sounds good," as Erin states in his review. I assume that is the point @staticV3 and @Blockader were making, that you take the circuit as part of the "sound" of the speaker. But I intend to use these speakers I pick to assess music objectively so it can transfer to all systems. I want something that is as uncolored as possible to compare, say, many mastering versions of an album or song and decide which one I would like to hear. Like @sejarzo says, and I don't disagree, it is an amazing speaker for it's price range and maybe double that, but will it serve my purpose?

It also is disappointing it does not have a digital signal in order to bypass the ADC of the circuit, but the reasoning why has been discussed. I guess there is no reason to get a Wiim pro plus, ultra or an external dac, like the Topping D50 III that I was considering to use with my Wiim Pro, considering I will have to use the analogue input on this speaker. I assume I am correct in this assessment?

Hmmm....I have questions....

What do we know about the performance of the Class D amps in those Genelec speakers in and of themselves rather than as part of the entire system? I think that is germane to the comparison of a $1500 pair of speakers to a $300 pair of speakers. For all we know, they could be fairly similar.

These are good questions I am investigating. I too wonder what is employed in those amps and am researching that. I do realize it is not a fair comparison and I am wondering if there is a speaker in between.

Hmmm....I have questions....

What do we know about the performance of the Class D amps in those Genelec speakers in and of themselves rather than as part of the entire system? I think that is germane to the comparison of a $1500 pair of speakers to a $300 pair of speakers. For all we know, they could be fairly similar.

How much content above 22 kHz is present in 96kHz recordings that isn't just the noise from the microphones plus the preamps etc. in the recording chain?

All I know is that for $300, I haven't heard any monitor of similar size that performs as well. If I want to hear every detail, I use my DCA headphones.

If engineers use there cut off filter effectively, no content above 22 kHz is present.

 

[sejarzo]

I want something that is as uncolored as possible to compare, say, many mastering versions of an album or song and decide which one I would like to hear.

What most listeners would describe as "coloration" is mostly determined by relatively gross and measurable differences in frequency response, is it not, moreso than sub 1% differences in THD?

I can hear the differences between the 2009 and later remasters of The Beatles' albums on the Kalis, but those have also been highly processed and remixed.

Klippel data I have seen elsewhere for the Kalis show THD from 50 Hz to 1 kHz at -30 to -40 dB or 1-3% at 86 dB SPL at 1 meter versus Amir's measurements here -40 to -54 dB/0.2 to 1.0% THD for the Genelec 8030C.

I simply wanted a better pair of computer speakers for listening to YouTube videos and the like after having several pair of $100-150/pair monitors that were neither good nor reliable over time. That's not particularly critical listening by any means.

I measured them at my ear position with REW and use convolver in Foobar2000 to flatten out the response as my listening position at a built-in desk results in some odd behavior on the left side. That something that is necessary with any speaker to minimize what I and most others would call "coloration."

 

[GratefulDAC]

@sejarzon, understood. I would probably jump at them for your purposes or just keep my current set up of KRK Rockit 6s, but I wanted something more accurate, so I could trust what I am hearing. Unfortunately I no longer have a dedicated listening of mixing space, so I have a very cramped space with a 34" widescreen monitor that keeps the tweeters 1 meter apart and about 1 meter to my ears. There is very little space, maybe 3-5" to the wall behind them. Above the desk there will be book shelves 14"above, so the speakers are somewhat boxed in, though the drivers will all be slightly in front of the shelf protrusion and at 75-90 degrees off the monitor screen. This, of course will add some base boost and who knows what else. That is why I was planning of doing as you did and correct them, but I would probably use a minidsp flex. However, I just realized that is also limited to 24/48.

The SAM Genelecs might present the best solution for this situation, but I could possible use some sort of app for a dedicated set of PEQs, or with Foobar, as you do with the Kalis. I guess I need to research a bit more. I am also looking at the and 305P mk II, the KH80 as they will fit in the area I have. The Kali LP-6, Elac DB62, Ascend Sierra-1 V2, Revel M105 & M16 are all options, but they would be very tight fits, requiring me to place spacers to lift the shelves in order to tuck them in. I guess I will start a thread in the short future asking for advice on these sets of speakers.

Like you, I can use headphones, in my case Etymotik ER4 in ears for critical listening, but I never end up doing it. Listening free field is so much easier and enjoyable, but maybe I need to rethink this for my critical listening.

BTW @staticV3 and @Blockader, to be fair I must admit that I went back and checked out Brian Moore's psychology of hearing and he spoke of the test from 1971. He said that certain distortions may have provided aural cues that would have helped individuals pick out the 2 tones. He reported that further tests using distortion to mask these cues resulted in the smallest gap being 2-3 milliseconds which probably more accurately represents the temporal acuity of human hearing. So I guess that nugget supporting 96 kHz sampling rate is not so strong.

 

[Rorschach]

Just got these, and I'm really liking the sound. After some adjustments with the back switches, I found the best settings for my setup and room. I use them as casual multimedia speakers. Previously, I used the JBL LSR305, LSR308, and Focal Alpha 80, and I don't find these lacking compared to those larger speakers. Though, naturally, the low end isn't as full as those and midrange feels slightly recessed. That said, they're VERY impressive in terms of sound/size.

One major issue I encountered during room correction was a severe peak around 125Hz, which I know is a room issue from past experience. To resolve this, I applied an EQ at 124Hz with -9dB and a Q of 3.5, which has made a significant improvement. No issues now.

I have a question for you folks. I currently have them connected to a Chord Hugo 2 through RCA, but I also have a Topping D50 III DAC with TRS balanced outputs. Should I buy TRS cables and use the LP-UNF's TRS input instead of RCA? Would there be any benefit to that? Kali's information on the internal DAC and DSP correction in these speakers is a bit unclear.

 

[staticV3]

Just got these, and I'm really liking the sound. After some adjustments with the back switches, I found the best settings for my setup and room. I use them as casual multimedia speakers. Previously, I used the JBL LSR305, LSR308, and Focal Alpha 80, and I don't find these lacking compared to those larger speakers. Though, naturally, the low end isn't as full as those and midrange feels slightly recessed. That said, they're VERY impressive in terms of sound/size.

One major issue I encountered during room correction was a severe peak around 125Hz, which I know is a room issue from past experience. To resolve this, I applied an EQ at 124Hz with -9dB and a Q of 3.5, which has made a significant improvement. No issues now.

I have a question for you folks. I currently have them connected to a Chord Hugo 2 through RCA, but I also have a Topping D50 III DAC with TRS balanced outputs. Should I buy TRS cables and use the LP-UNF's TRS input instead of RCA? Would there be any benefit to that? Kali's information on the internal DAC and DSP correction in these speakers is a bit unclear.

The LP-UNF uses DSP correction, which means that the highest playback fidelity will be achieved using its USB input.