• 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 Uni-Q generations and speakers

Already in this thread, it's a very clear difference
View attachment 186137

Hmm

But the R series from 2018 and References series have a layering design, the UNIQ have it's own chamber, because the ls50 are port speaker it's not compatible with the layering design
View attachment 186138
Do you think the R Series will benefit from the meta treatment as well as all the other modifications that have been done in the LS50?
 
Do you think the R Series will benefit from the meta treatment as well as all the other modifications that have been done in the LS50?
Im not qualify enough to answer that question


But personally i prefer to see more care for: bass extension and bass directivity control.. instead of the meta thing
 
Im not qualify enough to answer that question


But personally i prefer to see more care for: bass extension and bass directivity control.. instead of the meta thing
Well we all know the over priced Reference series is common with meta material marketing and new drivers it will be interesting to see if Amir and Erin can demonstrate if they are better quality speakers with better measurements and sound good!
 
Last edited:
Well we all know the over priced Reference series is common with meta material marketing and new drivers it will be interesting to see if Amir and Erin demonstrate better quality speakers
I don't think the Referencess are overprice, in my point of view the problem is the whole industry is not competent enough and most manufacturers are still launching the same design over and over again.. sometimes worse and pricer



In fact Kef is one of these few manufacturers that get right the coaxial design. (With low distortion in the whole FR and very good directivity, also linear FR).
 
I don't think the Referencess are overprice, in my point of view the problem is the whole industry is not competent enough and most manufacturers are still launching the same design over and over again.. sometimes worse and pricer



In fact Kef is one of these few manufacturers that get right the coaxial design. (With low distortion in the whole FR and very good directivity, also linear FR).
Well I am sorry to disagree, if you know the margins for speakers they range anywhere from 40 - 60 points if KEF was to sell only direct and get rid of dealers that just push boxes, then I would agree that they are reasonably priced.
 
Im not qualify enough to answer that question


But personally i prefer to see more care for: bass extension and bass directivity control.. instead of the meta thing
Isn't that what subs are for? Given how tricky bass response and its interaction with the room is, I'd rather optimize it with a sub that is completely separate. It gives me far more control over crossover, placement and level. I still have rather expensive towers, but couldn't make them fulfill their potential when I moved to a smaller place.
Going forward, I am a bookshelf and sub(s) convert. Maybe smallish towers that don't have much more bass extension than a bookshelf.
 
Last edited:
To me the whole indsutry needs to change, actually the speakers are kind of the same always.

Why in 2020 speakers companys still doesn't give 20hz-20khz?

Well, because it isn't easy and indeed there haven't been groundbreaking engineering advances in speaker design - manufacturing and material improvements - plenty. Fundamental breakthroughs... pretty much none. :) That's why a great 25 year old speaker will still sound pretty great today. Let's not kid ourselves otherwise.
 
Isn't that what subs are for? Given how tricky bass response and its interaction with the room is, I'd rather optimize it with a sub that is completely separate. It gives me far more control over crossover, placement and level. I still have rather expensive towers, but couldn't make them fulfill their potential when I moved to a smaller place.
Going forward, I am a bookshelf and sub(s) convert. Maybe smallish towers that don't have much more bass extension than a bookshelf.
Yep, but that's why i also wanted bass directivity control, like the d&d 8c or kii three.

Personally i have the R7s in my smalish room, with EQ and placement i got very good sub.
I saw some people measurements from the R series, if you let these to gain some dB in the sub bass and then correct them using in-room EQ, these kind of towers can extend pretty low.


For example this guy bought the KEF R7 + K92, but he prefered the R7+ dirac result without sub, but he got 25hz sub bass.. but in-room, of course.

(This was Dirac, right?) I can't remember.
Here you can see the measurements:
KEF R7 ( yellow+pink ) and also the subwoofer ( light blue line )
271636624_10227311210470576_1167128134473810703_n.jpg
 
Isn't that what subs are for? Given how tricky bass response and its interaction with the room is, I'd rather optimize it with a sub that is completely separate. It gives me far more control over crossover, placement and level. I still have rather expensive towers, but couldn't make them fulfill their potential when I moved to a smaller place.
Going forward, I am a bookshelf and sub(s) convert. Maybe smallish towers that don't have much more bass extension than a bookshelf.
I am as well used to have 800D2 & 802D2 sold them all bought KEF LS50 and subs and never looked back
 
Already in this thread, it's a very clear difference
View attachment 186137

I dispute that's a "clear difference". They show near identical character and the differences are probably well within pure statistical variance given the nature of the measurements. That's why I posted them side to side to begin with. You can also go check out the Stereophile measurements of the Metas, which are compared to the originals throughout. Darn near identical.

I respect the input from people that claim they can hear a difference. I don't. But I think -based on the measurements- that claims the old ones totally suck and are "unlistenable" is going comically over the top. If you find the old ones terrible, the new ones must be, too. :) In no way ever enough of a measurable difference to make the originals bad, the new ones brilliant (sorry Amir :-D).

If the Metas are brilliant (which I don't dispute the least), then the originals are at least pretty darn awesome. :) THAT is what the measurements at the very least state, side by side. There are no fundamental flaws in either, and the overall character is -uhm- very similar and close to semi identical.

PS: I am a committed forum donor.
 
Last edited:
I dispute that's a "clear difference". They show near identical character and the differences are probably well within pure statistical variance given the nature of the measurements. That's why I posted them side to side to begin with. You can also go check out the Stereophile measurements of the Metas, which are compared to the originals throughout. Darn near identical.

I respect the input from people that claim they can hear a difference. I don't. But I think -based on the measurements- that claims the old ones totally suck and are "unlistenable" is going comically over the top. If you find the old ones terrible, the new ones must be, too. :) In no way ever enough of a measurable difference to make the originals bad, the new ones brilliant (sorry Amir :-D).
I listened to both and to me its a easy difference in high. LS50 regular sounds "nasal" in comparison
 
Klippel NFS don't :)

You can't compare stereophile measurements with Klippel.
Warum nicht? Weil Kippel ene kleine deutsche Mittelstand Firma ist und deshald unfehlbar ist, die neue Messungsreligion? Unsinn. Kippel hat klar publiziert, was sie koennen - und was nicht.
 
I listened to both and to me its a easy difference in high. LS50 regular sounds "nasal" in comparison
I respect your opinion but it is not supported by measurements. However we will always get some variance for many possible reasons. I hope people enjoy their music first and foremost.
 
Warum nicht? Weil Kippel ene kleine deutsche Mittelstand Firma ist und deshald unfehlbar ist, die neue Messungsreligion? Unsinn. Kippel hat klar publiziert, was sie koennen - und was nicht.
weil klippel können ist genug zu wissen wie ein lautsprecher klingt im einem raum
 
weil klippel können ist genug zu wissen wie ein lautsprecher klingt im einem raum
Im Raum klangen beide indenitsch, Amir hat das klar gemessen und es ist irgendwo in einem frueheren Post. Aber das ist alles ohne optimale Einstellung mit einem Sub.
 
PS: Just because I speak German and listened to some Kippel pitches doesn't mean I claim any higher expertise here, nor will I ever try to pull my engineering cred (University in Munich was over 20 years ago, and I work in software anyhow). My point is simply - don't misuse small differences in measurements to justify subjectivist impressions that are maybe possibly influenced by early pride of ownership.

My respect for the original LS50 didn't grow easily. I actually sold my first pair and replaced them with far more expensive alternatives. Then I was like... Hmm... missing them. Scored them in red. Love the color. Sold the far more expensive alternatives. Bought the Metas. Amazing of course. But not enough to make me move. Sorry but I am also a visual guy. I don't in the least dispute there are advancements, it's just it wasn't a diffeence worth compromising my visual preference for.

If you own either in a none near-field environment (which I don't think they are optimal for to begin with), you definitely are shortchanging either not setting them up with a sub. Just IMO.
 
Last edited:
PS: Just because I speak German and listened to some Kippel pitches doesn't mean I claim any higher expertise here, nor will I ever try to pull my engineering cred (University in Munich was over 20 years ago, and I work in software anyhow). My point is simply - don't misuse small differences in measurements to justify subjectivist impressions that are maybe possibly influenced by early pride of ownership.

My respect for the original LS50 didn't grow easily. I actually sold my first pair and replaced them with far more expensive alternatives. Then I was like... Hmm... missing them. Scored them in red. Love the color. Sold the far more expensive alternatives. Bought the Metas. Amazing of course. But not enough to make me move. Sorry but I am also a visual guy. I don't in the least dispute there are advancements, it's just it wasn't a diffeence worth compromising my visual preference for.

If you own either in a none near-field environment (which I don't think they are optimal for to begin with), you definitely are shortchanging either not setting them up with a sub. Just IMO.
this is mostly a techinical forum, and I think everyone values that a little more than usual in every other forum. But in the case of LS50, there are many people who listened to both and they all think the Metas has a clear improvment. I dont own both , even 1 month back I had an oppportunity to listen both and to me definitely without looking at any measurement old is is mid heavy and lacks air in top end. The new one is very even sounding, it sounded like R series more with less bass. But yes, different people has different levels of tolerance and idea of good sound. We only need to satisfy ourselves.
 
I respect your opinion but it is not supported by measurements.
It is, a quite wide almost 3dB difference in the presence region as shown in the Stereophile measurements exactly does that:
1220KEF50fig07.jpg

source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-ls50-meta-loudspeaker-measurements

Or if you want from the ASR on-axis window measurements of both

1644713788075.png


ASR early reflexions

1644713859798.png


ASR predicted in room response

1644713942500.png


and my own in room response differences

1644714317691.png


as well as the measurements of Soundstage, Napilopez and others...

You see there is are very consistent differences which are very audible and this only partially and indirectly shows the directivity differences (DI by ASR)

1644714615735.png


and the distortion differences which depending on the listening level can be less audible (my own measurements):

index.php


I had even posted an EQ to bring the tonality of the original ones closer to the Meta one

index.php


Filter 1: ON PK Fc 55.30 Hz Gain -1.00 dB Q 3.000
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 140.0 Hz Gain -1.00 dB Q 2.000
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 450.0 Hz Gain 1.50 dB Q 1.400
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 1500 Hz Gain 2.00 dB Q 3.000
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 2600 Hz Gain -3.00 dB Q 1.700

especially this 3dB presence difference is really and easily audible and makes the original LS50 sound quite shouty, especially in the nearfield or when toed in.
 
So much arguing, if you own both then you can tell us your opinion and which ones you prefer!
I like the original and expect to like the meta as well since they improved a lot of things besides the meta material!
 
Back
Top Bottom