KEF LS50 Meta Review (Speaker)

[phoenixdogfan]

This doesnt need to be scientific, its just an opinion of a LS50 owner. The LS50 are hard to drive speakers for its size and category, and will bloom with more powerful and pricier amps. Some speakers dont change much with an increase of power, the LS50s do. It will work with lesser amps, but it definitely start singing with pricier amps. What makes you think only totl speakers possess this trait?

I'm driving mine with the Purifi Eval 1. I think that's an endgame amp for around $1200.

 

[muad]

I'm driving mine with the Purifi Eval 1. I think that's an endgame amp for around $1200.

Even a couple of cheap hypex modules can get you better performance than most expensive boutique amplifiers.

 

[Moosi]

The LS50 Meta are nearly flawless to me. What really strikes me, besides the stage they create and the total control they seem to have over everything, is the way they create certain voices, especially on tracks that emphazise on that. It sounds just "real" as if the singer was giving you a private audition. The entire wall/space between the speakers is where the voice seems to emerge from and it is huge. That feeling I always had even with pricey speakers, that you are still somehow listening to sound coming "out of a can/box" in a way is totally gone. With the right recording and if you close your eyes, there are no speakers anymore and you'd have to convince yourself by knowledge that you are not being in a lounge somewhere listening to a live singer with a band. Your ears alone would have some trouble figuring that (unless you actually play in a band). That's how good they are. Anyone who is prone to negative thinking, as I am, should subscribe himself a pair of them. They'll lift you up!

 

[KMO]

Here's a 1-hour in-depth presentation about the LS50 Meta and its predecessor. Goes into a lot of detail of the engineering choices. Pitched a bit more technical than the white papers.

This is a recording of an Acoustics Lunchtime Research Seminar given by Dr Sebastien Degraeve of KEF UK to the Salford Acoustics Group on the 10th March 2021.

 

[Deleted member 22141]

Curiously the "put a subwoofer on top and bottom of the LS50M" is a very similar approach to what KEF themselves actually do with the Blade and Blade2.

In fact the subwoofers in the Blade 2 look very much like (and I'm sure share a lot of technology with) the KC62.

Component cost of them might be something like:

Blade 2 = £20,000

LS50M = £1.000
4xKC62 = £6,000

You would probably need to add in one of the 8 channel miniDSP boxes too.

I encourage someone to give it a try. Consider it a challenge.

 

[Dennis_FL]

That's one way to look at it. I might argue you saved money in the long run by buying a great speaker to begin with.

Great speaker indeed. The reviews around the web are mostly 5 stars. What's not to like?

When I was young, I asked my older brother what an audiophile is. He said it's someone who complains a lot. So if I didn't complain about something....I can't be an audiophile? And these speakers are pricey. My wife wanted the wireless version as the receiver, amp, etc disappear from the room and give that minimalistic view. I didn't get wireless in the end. I had misgivings about how it would handle analog sources (does it convert to digital and then back to analog?). And I could not find which DACs it uses - if I go straight from Roon and bypass my Gustard DAC.

 

[Deleted member 35396]

Great speaker indeed. The reviews around the web are mostly 5 stars. What's not to like?

When I was young, I asked my older brother what an audiophile is. He said it's someone who complains a lot. So if I didn't complain about something....I can't be an audiophile? And these speakers are pricey. My wife wanted the wireless version as the receiver, amp, etc disappear from the room and give that minimalistic view. I didn't get wireless in the end. I had misgivings about how it would handle analog sources (does it convert to digital and then back to analog?). And I could not find which DACs it uses - if I go straight from Roon and bypass my Gustard DAC.

I went with the wireless metas. The wifey is definitely happy with less black boxes in our living room.
You are right about converting analog to digital… And I mainly do vinyl. But…. But… I think it’s great. It’s very “transparent” lacking of a better word.

 

[KMO]

So if I didn't complain about something....I can't be an audiophile? And these speakers are pricey. My wife wanted the wireless version as the receiver, amp, etc disappear from the room and give that minimalistic view. I didn't get wireless in the end. I had misgivings about how it would handle analog sources (does it convert to digital and then back to analog?). And I could not find which DACs it uses - if I go straight from Roon and bypass my Gustard DAC.

In terms of pure sound quality, the Wireless II should always beat the Meta. Unless its DACs are incredibly deficient, anything you lose by not using your favourite external DAC (or even adding a whole ADC+DAC stage) should pale into insignificance compared to the benefit of the digital crossover and independent drive of the tweeter and woofer, plus the intelligent DSP bass control. Those are real, measurable benefits with audible impact, whereas DAC differences are like amplifier differences - debatable whether they're perceptable as long as they're working well enough.

But I went with the Meta too, for price+integration reasons. I'm using 7 of them in a 7.1 setup, and there's no way to do that with the Wireless II. Even if it was possible, it's a big price increase when I already have amplification, I'm wary of the lifetime of all the digital bits including support app, and it's easier to get a speaker wire to my locations than a power connection. Plus the visual clutter of the IR receiver + controls is annoying - the passives are so much tidier. And the blue's so pretty!

I'm probably not an audiophile either, cos I don't complain enough, and I don't get the upgrade bug often. This is only my second set of speakers - they replaced a set of original KEF KHT2005 eggs from 2000(?). The Metas fulfil the same criteria that had me choose those long ago - not too big, pretty, coaxial, neutral, well-engineered, high-performing for the price point, and every speaker identical.

Main complaint isn't the speakers - it's that the matching S2 stands are a bit short, particularly for the surround positions. I liked the taller KHT2005 stands. But again, the looks plus practicality of the bolt mounting overweighed finding alternatives. Not enough of an audiophile, clearly.

 

[Moosi]

I'm using 7 of them in a 7.1 setup

You must be living a very happy life.

Main complaint isn't the speakers - it's that the matching S2 stands are a bit short, particularly for the surround positions.

Buy those. Don't question the cheap price. Fill them with sand. Thank me later. https://www.musicstore.com/en_US/USD/Fame-Audio-DB-060-Pair/art-REC0014402-000

 

[Deleted member 35396]

the matching S2 stands are a bit short.

I’m waiting for my stands to arrive and suspecting the same problem… A bit short…
Is it bad to put the speakers on a pair of IsoAcoustic stands and then put them on the S2 stands? As that is probably what I’m gonna do.

 

[Moosi]

If your floor is solid, put them on the stands with 8mm spikes screwed into the bottom holes, resting onto hardened (never soft!) rubber plates. If your floor is soft and you need to seperate the vibrations desperately, I would use the iso-stands, but fasten them somehow to the stands. I believe using the whole stand as a vibration deflector gives a fuller/better/warmer sound, yet with the spikes you get some decoupling at least and you could use really high spikes gaining a few inches. In addition you could rest a heavy plate of polished granite beneath the stands again with hardened rubber plates each between floor, plate and stands, gaining even more height, decoupling even more.

 

[MNMLSM]

I'm using 7 of them in a 7.1 setup, and there's no way to do that with the Wireless II.

We need pictures!

 

[testp]

Here's a 1-hour in-depth presentation about the LS50 Meta and its predecessor. Goes into a lot of detail of the engineering choices. Pitched a bit more technical than the white papers.

This is a recording of an Acoustics Lunchtime Research Seminar given by Dr Sebastien Degraeve of KEF UK to the Salford Acoustics Group on the 10th March 2021.

i would like to eat the blue ones, the speakers i mean...

 

[testp]

There is almost a formula to success in speakers sales now,

1. make them measure > near perfect, confirm by measurements (own and if lucky by Amirm)

2. make them looking beautiful ( speakers not looking fully black/white/mediocre brown, this is boring as hell to me at least bookshelves)

...this could be a strong decider and happy customer receipt.


Also, i have a feeling we will be seeing a LOT of good measured speakers soon... bc this forum and Amirm efforts can make/brake a speaker sales now, i think.

 

[MarkWinston]

There is almost a formula to success in speakers sales now,

1. make them measure > near perfect, confirm by measurements (own and if lucky by Amirm)

2. make them looking beautiful ( speakers not looking fully black/white/mediocre brown, this is boring as hell to me at least bookshelves)

...this could be a strong decider and happy customer receipt.


Also, i have a feeling we will be seeing a LOT of good measured speakers soon... bc this forum and Amirm efforts can make/brake a speaker sales now, i think.

Good measurements ---> Sounds good to the ear ---> buy

Good measurements ---> Doesnt sound good to the ears ---> Walk away

Bad measurements ---> Sounds good to the ears ---> slap yourself for having a bad taste and walk away

Good measurements ---> Sound good to ears
---> looks ugly ---> buy and tell yourself 20 times every night before you go to sleep that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder

Good measurements ---> Sound good to the ears ---> looks fantastic ---> buy THREE

Bad measurements ---> Sound good to the ears ---> Looks ugly --- Run and go kill yourself

Bad measurements ---> Dont sound good to the ears ---> Looks amazing ---> Go DIY a speaker that looks exactly like it and make it measure and sound great

 

[phoenixdogfan]

In terms of pure sound quality, the Wireless II should always beat the Meta. Unless its DACs are incredibly deficient, anything you lose by not using your favourite external DAC (or even adding a whole ADC+DAC stage) should pale into insignificance compared to the benefit of the digital crossover and independent drive of the tweeter and woofer, plus the intelligent DSP bass control. Those are real, measurable benefits with audible impact, whereas DAC differences are like amplifier differences - debatable whether they're perceptable as long as they're working well enough.

But I went with the Meta too, for price+integration reasons. I'm using 7 of them in a 7.1 setup, and there's no way to do that with the Wireless II. Even if it was possible, it's a big price increase when I already have amplification, I'm wary of the lifetime of all the digital bits including support app, and it's easier to get a speaker wire to my locations than a power connection. Plus the visual clutter of the IR receiver + controls is annoying - the passives are so much tidier. And the blue's so pretty!

I'm probably not an audiophile either, cos I don't complain enough, and I don't get the upgrade bug often. This is only my second set of speakers - they replaced a set of original KEF KHT2005 eggs from 2000(?). The Metas fulfil the same criteria that had me choose those long ago - not too big, pretty, coaxial, neutral, well-engineered, high-performing for the price point, and every speaker identical.

Main complaint isn't the speakers - it's that the matching S2 stands are a bit short, particularly for the surround positions. I liked the taller KHT2005 stands. But again, the looks plus practicality of the bolt mounting overweighed finding alternatives. Not enough of an audiophile, clearly.

Here's the stands I'm using for surrounds.

http://www.vtimanufacturing.com/vti_product/ble101-surround-sound-speaker-stand/

When I bought the Metas, I ticketed the OG LS 50's for surround duty.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Good measurements ---> Sound good to the ears ---> looks fantastic ---> buy THREE

Bad measurements ---> Sound good to the ears ---> Looks ugly --- Run and go kill yourself

Bad measurements ---> Dont sound good to the ears ---> Looks amazing ---> Go DIY a speaker that looks exactly like it and make it measure and sound great

This one is very dangerous! D:

 

[amirm]

When I was young, I asked my older brother what an audiophile is. He said it's someone who complains a lot.

By that definition, we have tons of audiophiles here!!!

 

[amirm]

In terms of pure sound quality, the Wireless II should always beat the Meta.

Do they have any tweeter noise?

 

[Moosi]

In terms of pure sound quality, the Wireless II should always beat the Meta. Unless its DACs are incredibly deficient

The problem with the Wireless II is that you are dependend on the internal amplification/dac-combo. While this is supposedly not a bad circuit by design, I've heard complaints about them sounding "clinical" and "cold". Andrew Robinson on yt claimed this f.e.

In his verdict he is referring to the incredible ability of the passive LS50 Metas to "show the sound signature of your amp/dac" and since he was using high tier amplification the passive Metas sounded warm, lush and awesome to him, whereas the Wireless II were a step down in that regard.