- Jul 5, 2021
Could you share these EQ in values (freq, dB and Q), so I can try in my Lyngdorf Voice or in Roon EQ?
I think I'm seeing a projector and screen there. Could you use an acoustically transparent screen and place another R5 or R3 behind it? That seems ideal.
You do all this to watch Sanford and Son? I'm just joking LOL! Hope I gave you a laugh-feel better.Sure. Usually I keep the fireplace a little more tidy but been very sick this week - basically wake up, make a fire for ambiance, take meds, lay down and listen to Depeche Mode or Bjork surround mixes, get up to take meds and stoke fire, repeat. Just discovered Electric Ladyland in 5.1 this morning, so that's been nice. You know it's bad when you work from home and still had to take off the whole week. Tested negative for COVID, flu A/B plus I'm vaccinated+boosted and got my flu shot so no idea what's up...
I have a R2C as well but I can't decide what to do with it. Option 1 is right above the screen in a more traditional center arrangement. Problem there is I never seem to like centers with music whether it's native multichannel or upmixed. I'm also not sure how it would blend with what's already present - it's a hell of a lot of work for it to end up sounding bad. And I can't just undo it because I'd have holes in the wall.
Option 2 is put it way up high as a center height channel. Downside is I'd have to hire. I don't have the gall or the tools to lift 44lbs of speaker 10ft high. Also, not a whole lot of center height material out there. Atmos doesn't even recognize it.
What say you all?
Yes, those are LS50 Meta as rear Dolby. I can't find a means of mounting any sort of rear height that scores acceptably in the WAF unless I drill into that stone, which I prefer not to do. I originally bought them for front height, but they did not blend at all with the R3 or R5. I was taken aback how distracting it was - I now know exactly what people mean when they say multichannel needs to be timbre matched. With the R3/R5 combo it's like my whole wall is a speaker, it's the epitome of "speakers that disappear.". That's my hesitation around adding R2C, nervous I'll ruin that effect.
If I can ever find a screaming deal on R11 I plan on moving the R5's to surround but using these little KH80s for now because their cute stature got them just high enough on the WAF score to pass muster. I tried some LSX's there but the software is AWFUL. At that point, the only upgrade I would consider is Be or Ultima but even setting aside the exorbitant cost I'm not sure 70+ degrees of beamwidth will sound good in this room. As you can see, it's highly reverberant and we don't want to add any treatment unless we can find something that augments the aesthetic rather than detracts.
Finally, I'm sure someone will ask. The R3's have threaded holes in the bottom so I used eye bolts and 75lb carabineers to hang then upside down. Yes, this is a risk. No, I do not advocate that *you* do it - it's a calculated risk on my part and obviously they weren't intended to be used this way. I tested in my office by letting them hang in the closet for 2 weeks and saw no noticeable signs of stress, so I went for it. Because the R5's are almost directly under the R3's it's highly improbable anyone would ever be standing there should they fall. When I get around to adding the R2C I'm also going to add another layer of R3 support just in case, maybe some ratchet straps on another eye hook in the beam - not sure yet.
Do you wanna my In room EQ?
That EQ is for fixing the bass problem in my room, nothing more nothing less
If I cross them over at 100Hz it becomes a non issue!R3 is noticeably better. That coax design they use doesn't do so hot without a woofer.
LS50 at 86 and 96 dB %THD (0.5% is -50dB; 1% is -40dB; 3% is -30dB)
Vs Erin's measurements of the R3 (from www.erinsaudiocorner.com )
Notice that the R3s deal with higher levels better, especially at low frequencies - the LS50 falls apart around 100hz, where the R3 is fine down to about 60hz.
My friend, everything you can possibly know about these speakers without actually listening to them, is said probably more than once in this thread. Do read it, and above all, try to listen to both, as you will read recommended in the thread.Hi,
my set: Hegel H95, Audiolab 6000 CDT, MA Gold 100 (5G), VIABLUE SC-4 Bi-Wire T6s
Idon't feel the synergy with MA Gold 100 (5G). I'm looking for the ideal speaker to the H95 Important for me tight, quick and clear bass. Maybe R3 or META?
Thanks for the recommendations.
Even so the R3 use older drivers technology?My friend, everything you can possibly know about these speakers without actually listening to them, is said probably more than once in this thread. Do read it, and above all, try to listen to both, as you will read recommended in the thread.
The LS50 (original) are a tremendous speaker. Truly amazing. The Meta ups things quite a bit, above very impressive. The R3s in my opinion are better (it’s hard for me to even say because I adored the Metas) but for small spaces the Metas might be a safer recommendation.
Read the thread.
They don’t have the meta technology and all the modifications that they made for the LS50 meta
They're similar, yes, but they're not the same.Who told you that? Is that insider knowledge not disclosed to the public? Seems unlikely. They use the same version of the UniQ driver. That’s what was made available to the public.
My quoted post referred to the R3 vs LS50 Metas.They're similar, yes, but they're not the same.
The white papers for the R series and LS50 Meta are available, and they've discussed the changes.
They're not huge fundamental changes - they call the Uni-Qs "12th generation" and "12th generation with MAT" respectively, and they're at roughly the same price point (unlike some other drivers of the same generation).
The LS50 Meta did start from the R series driver, incorporating stuff it introduced like the new higher-flux midrange magnet system, and the tweeter gap damper.
It's not super clear, cos the LS50 Meta paper is mainly making comparisons with the original LS50, so repeats some of the stuff seen in the R series paper.
But the main differences seem to be:
1) A bit bigger and with a Z-flex surround to assist 2-way operation (a fundamental design difference common with the LS50, rather than an update)
2) Wider tweeter duct to support the MAT, and the MAT itself.
3) Reimplemented tweeter gap damper because of wider duct. (It wasn't present at all in the original LS50, being new in R series). No information which version actually performs better.
4) Stiffened tangerine waveguide
5) Reworked tweeter magnet + coil system
6) Larger aluminium shorting rings doing whatever they do in the midrange magnets
But I wouldn't sweat it that much. People get hung up on the Uni-Q "versions", but the actual price levels - Q / R+LS / Reference / Blade - are more significant. R series and LS50 Meta are in the same price bracket, and not massively different in version.
And being 3-way rather than 2-way is a significant overall advantage for the R series. LS50 gives you more "point source" Uni-Q goodness, but it's at a low-end distortion cost.
You are evaluating two very distinct speakers designs as if they were a cpu processor or a smartphones, as if single random numbers makes any sense. Latest R series was launched late in 2018, that’s almost 2019…they are closer to 3 years old design, which doesn’t really matter anything.In a few years maybe the R meta will be launched and then be superior to the LS50 meta for now they are a 4 year old design!