The Focal Stella Utopias at the back are about 1.5m tall and look absolutely tiny.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
KEF LS60 Wireless Just Announced
- Thread starter ThELiZ
- Start date
The Focal Stella Utopias at the back are about 1.5m tall and look absolutely tiny.
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,659
- Likes
- 2,810
If KEF takes the step to allow an external eq software, my guess is that I'd be Dirac too or Audyssey. Both are system-agnostic while other software like Lyngdorf or ARC are very tied to a manufacturer.
Which is a shame, to be honest, because those last two are excellent EQ systems.
Last edited:
nothingman
Senior Member
Call me crazy but that sounds like marketing. The speaker can’t produce ultra loud bass, so they use DSP to iron out as much distortion as they can and otherwise limit the total output. No different than the KC62 which shares the DNA. They don’t introduce DSP-controlled dynamics on the KC62 because of their understanding of psychoacoustics. They limit the little guy because it can’t produce low bass anyway. I’m all for the approach, it means the drivers are optimized to give everything they’ve got but never pushed past their limit, but KEF wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have to.
Effectively they're pushing the bass by EQ by doing "+10dB" or whatever at low frequencies, and the limiting is effectively on that overdrive.
The level-dependent limit is what allows a low-frequency boost/extension - something you could not normally safely do with a conventional setup - you have to dial it back as the signal and/or volume increases.
Very true. And let's not forget: 111 dB max. SPL at 1 m is still pretty hefty for such a small speaker. By chance it exactly equals the R7 in that respect (and clearly beats LS50 Wireless II, of course).
One could argue that there is some trickery involved because bass EQ is reduced at higher levels. This is true as well, but it's very clever trickery and few people will even notice, if they didn't read the white paper.
the max spl of 111db is a continuous rating for a pair of LS60, just fyi
bo_knows
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Very nice review!
On a side note, I really dig that front wall acoustical treatment.
On a side note, I really dig that front wall acoustical treatment.
Last edited:
But this is what engineering has done, right, not marketing.
You can certainly argue that terms like iBX are marketing speech (like MAT, SAS, SDCT, even Uni-Q and Uni-Core or GLM, Iso-Pod, SAM, The Ones, you name it). At least everything technical that actually performs a specific function will need a name anyway, be it marketing driven or not. Active bass EQ is such a thing. A -3 dB point of 31 Hz would be absolutely impossible to achieve from a 12.3 l cabinet without EQ, that's physics. 108 dB SPL (111 dB -3 dB) at 31 Hz would be absolutely impossible using four 5,25" woofers even with EQ, that's physics as well. Finding a solution that allows full bass extension at most typical listening levels and degrades this extension gracefully in the case of higher levels is a fine example of engineering balancing conflicting targets in my book. It's a compromise made under the boundary condition that small size has highest priority.
Users demanding full bass extension at extremely high levels will have to add one or two subwoofers. LS60 Wireless allows to do that in a technically good way by including a HPF and runtime correction. Isn't that a solution we can all live with?
Since you mention the KC62 I can see users combining it with LS60s due to its small footprint. That would not be my preferred choice in this scenario. But that's a different topic.
Indeed. It's funny in interviews when Jack Oclee-Brown has to talk about those things and he struggles to remember what marketing decided to call them, because it's not what they called them during years of development - they're labels stuck on after the event. He can at least remember the big ones like Uni-Q and (now) Uni-Core.
nothingman
Senior Member
But this is what engineering has done, right, not marketing.
Active bass EQ is such a thing. A -3 dB point of 31 Hz would be absolutely impossible to achieve from a 12.3 l cabinet without EQ, that's physics. 108 dB SPL (111 dB -3 dB) at 31 Hz would be absolutely impossible using four 5,25" woofers even with EQ, that's physics as well. Finding a solution that allows full bass extension at most typical listening levels and degrades this extension gracefully in the case of higher levels is a fine example of engineering balancing conflicting targets in my book. It's a compromise made under the boundary condition that small size has highest priority.
Users demanding full bass extension at extremely high levels will have to add one or two subwoofers. LS60 Wireless allows to do that in a technically good way by including a HPF and runtime correction. Isn't that a solution we can all live with?
Since you mention the KC62 I can see users combining it with LS60s due to its small footprint. That would not be my preferred choice in this scenario. But that's a different topic.
We’re almost talking past each other here, because we both totally agree that DSP allows for all sorts of things to happen that otherwise couldn‘t. What it sounded like to me was that you were saying the LF roll off behavior, specifically the compression, is all part of the KEF “iBX” magic. It sounded like you think they could have provided less compression but chose not to because of their understanding of psychoacoustics. What I’m saying is that the laws of physics give them no choice in the matter, and that the compression isn’t so much an engineering choice as a hard limit decided by other design factors.
Okay, but that's not what you were saying and what is being addressed, which was "isn’t the non-linear low frequency extension we see in the KEF graph just your basic dynamic compression, as seen in most speakers?" If you're talking past each other, it's because you've forgotten what you said, perhaps.
Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,659
- Likes
- 2,810
Well, the KC92 are also there...But this is what engineering has done, right, not marketing.
Active bass EQ is such a thing. A -3 dB point of 31 Hz would be absolutely impossible to achieve from a 12.3 l cabinet without EQ, that's physics. 108 dB SPL (111 dB -3 dB) at 31 Hz would be absolutely impossible using four 5,25" woofers even with EQ, that's physics as well. Finding a solution that allows full bass extension at most typical listening levels and degrades this extension gracefully in the case of higher levels is a fine example of engineering balancing conflicting targets in my book. It's a compromise made under the boundary condition that small size has highest priority.
Users demanding full bass extension at extremely high levels will have to add one or two subwoofers. LS60 Wireless allows to do that in a technically good way by including a HPF and runtime correction. Isn't that a solution we can all live with?
Since you mention the KC62 I can see users combining it with LS60s due to its small footprint. That would not be my preferred choice in this scenario. But that's a different topic.
The LS60 seems to be compromised in many regards because of the investors/marketings insistence on having a thin speaker. The tweeter is smaller. The mid is smaller. The motor of the woofers is smaller. The max excursion of the woofers is smaller. The diameter of the woofers is smaller. The volume is smaller.
It's a lifestyle speaker with proprietary electronics. Would be a shame if any of the electronics would die after 5 years.
It's a lifestyle speaker with proprietary electronics. Would be a shame if any of the electronics would die after 5 years.
Yes, everything is smaller than their other speakers.
Which still exist, and don't need the same sort of fancy electronic shenanigans to work within their constraints.
I'm sure you'll see some of the tech filter through to larger sizes at some point though.
I didn't bemoan how compromised the KEF KC62 was by its size, I just acknowledged the engineering smarts, decided it wasn't for me and bought the bigger KF92 instead.
Which still exist, and don't need the same sort of fancy electronic shenanigans to work within their constraints.
I'm sure you'll see some of the tech filter through to larger sizes at some point though.
I didn't bemoan how compromised the KEF KC62 was by its size, I just acknowledged the engineering smarts, decided it wasn't for me and bought the bigger KF92 instead.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2022
- Messages
- 3,326
- Likes
- 4,834
that has nothing to do with investors/marketing. it was a design goal
you're saying that like it's a bad thing. it keeps great directivity while increasing dispersion. what's wrong with people?
that's the only legitimate concern
Dictated by marketing. An engineer would have choosen a speaker that is a few mm less slim.
Consider why almost all good tweeters are about 1 inch. Now ponder why this one is smaller and why that tradeoff was made.
The same for the mid driver, a few mm more and you could have a lot more area.
The benefit for the bass drivers should be obvious as well, more volume to work against, possible larger diameter and thus larger area, thus greater air displacement and less need to protect the driver in the lowest frequencies.
Sorry, but that's historically proven nonsense.
Regarding the other points of your rant: LS60 Wireless has not been designed to be the best loudspeaker KEF can produce at this point in time. It's been designed to shift the borders of modern day lifestyle music systems. So simple.
Last edited:
Gosh, we get it - some of you think there is "no replacement for displacement" and aren't open to understanding the science here or reading the white paper. That's fine, move on. Also please stop bemoaning speakers designed with DSP being necessary as not having a passive option. DSP enables this speaker to exist and perform well. If you don't like it - Kef has plenty of other speakers for you... This is something different that doesn't exist in the market today. Kef should be praised for taking bold steps and doing something different.
Isn’t Uni-Core directly addressing ‘no replacement for displacement’ through the different sized voice coils to get higher excursion? On top of the use of multiple cones to increase area? Because last I checked, displacement is measured as a volume, not as two dimensions (I’m not aiming this at you, by the way).
It’s almost like their engineers took the Blade arrangement as a starting point and designed everything from there.
I think that part of the reason why this back and forth keeps happening is that the line between “lifestyle” and hifi has been blurred.
No one looks at the LS50 or the Formation Duo and says “why didn’t they use bigger drivers” because their targets are obvious from the form factor. With these being a significantly higher price and floor-standing, more of the traditional hifi buyers are looking at them.
The challenge is, those same people are judging them by their experience with passive loudspeakers, where cabinet volume and driver size are the only real ways to increase extension and output. These truisms are invalid for DSP controlled active loudspeakers. The average hifi buyer is completely unaware of this as the home audio market has resisted this change for years. After all, upgradeitis is far less acute when one has less boxes and cables to tweak and change. Is it any wonder then that the industry as a whole has stuck with separates and passive speakers?
The Genelec 8361 is a somewhat large bookshelf with pretty average sized drivers. Yet it has a response that embarrasses most floor-standers. How a product achieves its performance is academically interesting, though it’s how it performs that matters to those making purchasing decisions.
No one looks at the LS50 or the Formation Duo and says “why didn’t they use bigger drivers” because their targets are obvious from the form factor. With these being a significantly higher price and floor-standing, more of the traditional hifi buyers are looking at them.
The challenge is, those same people are judging them by their experience with passive loudspeakers, where cabinet volume and driver size are the only real ways to increase extension and output. These truisms are invalid for DSP controlled active loudspeakers. The average hifi buyer is completely unaware of this as the home audio market has resisted this change for years. After all, upgradeitis is far less acute when one has less boxes and cables to tweak and change. Is it any wonder then that the industry as a whole has stuck with separates and passive speakers?
The Genelec 8361 is a somewhat large bookshelf with pretty average sized drivers. Yet it has a response that embarrasses most floor-standers. How a product achieves its performance is academically interesting, though it’s how it performs that matters to those making purchasing decisions.
Similar threads
