KEF Q Concerto Meta vs ASCILAB C6B

[amirm]

Multi-tone is usually considered to be more audible than Harmonic distortion because it is noise as opposed to being related to the original signal.

Components of multitone are much lower in amplitude so much more easily masked by music. Best case audibility of distortion comes from harmonics, not intermodulation.

 

[Matt_Holland]

Components of multitone are much lower in amplitude so much more easily masked by music. Best case audibility of distortion comes from harmonics, not intermodulation.

@Audiofirstdesigns_Harry recently posted something to the contrary when discussing 3-way versus 2-way speakers. I’ll try and find the post.

 

[obsessive9119]

I haven’t heard the Ascilabs, but in person I liked the KEF LS50 Metas quite a bit more than the Q Concerto for not a whole lot more.

 

[amirm]

@Audiofirstdesigns_Harry recently posted something to the contrary when discussing 3-way versus 2-way speakers. I’ll try and find the post.

??? Unless his assessment included psychoacoustic analysis such as done in this paper, there is nothing there:
Perceptual Assessment of Distortion In Low-Frequency
Loudspeakers
Louis D. Fielder, and Michael J. Smithers

"nonlinear distortion for low-frequency loudspeakers,
i.e. those reproducing sounds at or below 500 Hz.
Unfortunately, simple nonlinear distortion metrics
such as harmonic distortion, total harmonic
distortion and noise, and intermodulation distortion
do not correlate well with perceived quality. Instead
this approach models the perceptual process of
nonlinear distortion detection via a spectral
comparison of loudspeaker acoustic output at the
second harmonic and above to auditory masking
values on a critical-band basis and then uses a
critical-band combination model for overall
audibility."

 

[Matt_Holland]

??? Unless his assessment included psychoacoustic analysis such as done in this paper, there is nothing there:
Perceptual Assessment of Distortion In Low-Frequency
Loudspeakers
Louis D. Fielder, and Michael J. Smithers

"nonlinear distortion for low-frequency loudspeakers,
i.e. those reproducing sounds at or below 500 Hz.
Unfortunately, simple nonlinear distortion metrics
such as harmonic distortion, total harmonic
distortion and noise, and intermodulation distortion
do not correlate well with perceived quality. Instead
this approach models the perceptual process of
nonlinear distortion detection via a spectral
comparison of loudspeaker acoustic output at the
second harmonic and above to auditory masking
values on a critical-band basis and then uses a
critical-band combination model for overall
audibility."

Thanks for the reference.

Harry’s post:

From my experience in designing loudspeakers, I personally believe there is a very strong correlation between the IMD performance and some subjective feelings like "Transparency" and "smoothness". It makes sense as IMD is noise and it's inharmonic to the original content.

When comparing the Cadentia 3 and the Fidelia side by side, the first thing that others and I notice is that, although their tonality is very similar, the Cadentia 3 simply sounds cleaner and smoother, and this becomes more obvious at higher SPLs. Back in my time at KEF, I felt the same when comparing the 2-way and the 3-way models too.

 

[tw 2022]

I thought about the same possibilities, but the lack of availability for the AsciLab made me think of other options. I went with the Ascend Acoustics Sierra V2. The Kefs look super cool though! I would have gone with the KEF if they had some of the same colors as their more expensive models. I'm guessing I would have been equally happy with those.

another great option , as is the philharmonic ceramic mini... for some folks (who do ht as much as music) the ascend cmt340se v2's look pretty great as well... many good choices as long as you are willing to do a little "homework"

 

[tw 2022]

The C6B has more upper bass output. And flatter/neutral/textbook response. The KEF will deliver more symmetrical response vertically and horizontally (not seen from those graphs). Advantage of this is difficult to quantify but if "free," is nice.

yes, depending on the room the uni-q design can be very helpful...

 

[Blueprint]

Thanks for the reference.

Harry’s post:

From my experience in designing loudspeakers, I personally believe there is a very strong correlation between the IMD performance and some subjective feelings like "Transparency" and "smoothness". It makes sense as IMD is noise and it's inharmonic to the original content.

When comparing the Cadentia 3 and the Fidelia side by side, the first thing that others and I notice is that, although their tonality is very similar, the Cadentia 3 simply sounds cleaner and smoother, and this becomes more obvious at higher SPLs. Back in my time at KEF, I felt the same when comparing the 2-way and the 3-way models too.

The LS50 Meta has one of the most transparent, cleanest sounding signatures of any speaker I’ve ever heard, and it performs woefully in IMD tests, so I’m not sure I buy that.

 

[Matt_Holland]

The LS50 Meta has one of the most transparent, cleanest sounding signatures of any speaker I’ve ever heard, and it performs woefully in IMD tests, so I’m not sure I buy that.

Exceptions aside, I think the general theory that a 3-way will beat a 2-way on THD and IMD and therefore produce a better subjective experience holds true.

 

[Open Mind Audio]

Second the no-FOMO advice offered in a previous post - these are all great speakers, and you're real chore here is to give yourself the grace to stick with one and enjoy the music without any what-ifs.

I recently went through this exact set of considerations looking for 5 new speakers for the home theater room, considering Asci's, KEF Q Concertos, and LS 50s. I went with the Concertos in part based on aesthetics (the walnut finish works in our room), price and availability. I still kinda FOMO on the LS 50s b/c I like them so much, but once I get into the music or watching a movie, I'm just happy.

And I'm sure I'd have been thrilled with any of those three choices.

If you're down to the two KEF options (LS 50 vs. Concerto), one dividing line is the sub situation. With great subs, I'd give the LS 50s an edge. But aesthetics comes into play too.

 

[tw 2022]

But aesthetics comes into play too.

both have their appeal ... depends on what you like, the concerto's are better for traditional looks , ls50's are more "modern"....

 

[Vacceo]

Second the no-FOMO advice offered in a previous post - these are all great speakers, and you're real chore here is to give yourself the grace to stick with one and enjoy the music without any what-ifs.

I recently went through this exact set of considerations looking for 5 new speakers for the home theater room, considering Asci's, KEF Q Concertos, and LS 50s. I went with the Concertos in part based on aesthetics (the walnut finish works in our room), price and availability. I still kinda FOMO on the LS 50s b/c I like them so much, but once I get into the music or watching a movie, I'm just happy.

And I'm sure I'd have been thrilled with any of those three choices.

If you're down to the two KEF options (LS 50 vs. Concerto), one dividing line is the sub situation. With great subs, I'd give the LS 50s an edge. But aesthetics comes into play too.

I wonder about the pontential benefits of jumping to the R series in your case. Sure, the expense would be drastically higher, but would the results be on par?

 

[tw 2022]

I wonder about the pontential benefits of jumping to the R series in your case. Sure, the expense would be drastically higher, but would the results be on par?

having heard them both at the same location (best buy showroom )... it's a "diminishing returns" and voicing choice.. the r3's are a little more top end emphasized the concerto's are very neutral , maybe a bit rolled off on top depending on the room ... the r3's do have better clarity , but it's not a huge upgrade , imo...I'd go concerto's myself , but a guy that wants to "blow some coin" on top end stuff might go for the r3's

 

[Open Mind Audio]

having heard them both at the same location (best buy showroom )... it's a "diminishing returns" and voicing choice.. the r3's are a little more top end emphasized the concerto's are very neutral , maybe a bit rolled off on top depending on the room ... the r3's do have better clarity , but it's not a huge upgrade , imo...I'd go concerto's myself , but a guy that wants to "blow some coin" on top end stuff might go for the r3's

Exactly how I feel, though the LS 50s are close enough in price they make for a good alternative as well. I use LS 60 wireless now for dedicated 2-channel listening space and went with Concertos for the home theater and multi-channel music, with subs. Could have just as readily gone with LS 50s in the home theater. But R3s would have been too small an ROI in my use case.

 

[kyuu]

Exceptions aside, I think the general theory that a 3-way will beat a 2-way on THD and IMD and therefore produce a better subjective experience holds true.

I think coaxials are a worst case scenario for this, as in a 2-way coaxial you generally have much worse IMD than a (halfway decent) 2-way cone/dome.

 

[Matt34]

Listening distance and average output levels would be my metric between choosing between the Ls50 and Concerto, regardless of sub use or not. For my basement setup or computer I would probably pick the 50’s. For my larger living room, I have the Concertos.

 

[EPICURIOUS007]

Question for kef owners,
i see a lot of kef use on sale,
most of which has some kind of deformation on the drivers.
some have dimples some have separation between the tweeter and midrange.
do any owners worry about how fragile the thin aluminum of the drivers are easily damaged?

 

[obsessive9119]

Question for kef owners,
i see a lot of kef use on sale,
most of which has some kind of deformation on the drivers.
some have dimples some have separation between the tweeter and midrange.
do any owners worry about how fragile the thin aluminum of the drivers are easily damaged?

One of my kids made a mess of one of my LS50 drivers and I need to get it replaced. I don’t necessarily think that they’re any more fragile than paper, though

 

[Open Mind Audio]

Question for kef owners,
i see a lot of kef use on sale,
most of which has some kind of deformation on the drivers.
some have dimples some have separation between the tweeter and midrange.
do any owners worry about how fragile the thin aluminum of the drivers are easily damaged?

No, it is not a concern for me. These are some of the most widely sold speakers (maybe the highest volume sold out there among audiophile-grade?), so it's only natural to see more on the used market relative to less purchased brands. A lot of the ones you see on eBay look like recoveries from home damage (fire, flood, etc), or else people with truly unruly children.

 

[delta76]

No, it is not a concern for me. These are some of the most widely sold speakers (maybe the highest volume sold out there among audiophile-grade?), so it's only natural to see more on the used market relative to less purchased brands. A lot of the ones you see on eBay look like recoveries from home damage (fire, flood, etc), or else people with truly unruly children.

also maybe due to the fact that the owners rarely use the grill covers? To my eyes Kef Coax drivers are the easiest on the eyes. Many other speaker's drivers look ugl(ier) by a mile.

Of course, just me.