LS50 vs LS50 Meta Comparison

[juliangst]

I also think that EQing LS50 gets you further than upgrading to the Metas.
It made a huge difference correcting for that dip in the 1kHz range which is present in both the OG LS50 and the LS50 Meta. I'm really glad I spend the money on Dirac Live instead of selling my LS50 and getting the Meta

 

[Descartes]

I also think that EQing LS50 gets you further than upgrading to the Metas.
It made a huge difference correcting for that dip in the 1kHz range which is present in both the OG LS50 and the LS50 Meta. I'm really glad I spend the money on Dirac Live instead of selling my LS50 and getting the Meta

I use ARC Genesis!

 

[Piopio]

The META version plays better than the previous version.

On the first listening I couldn't really hear the difference. The only thing I heard was that the bass became more punctual and harder.

It was only after switching the loudspeakers twice that I heard further differences.

In fact, MAT technology absorbs interference and makes the sound more natural. This is especially audible in the case of vocals. They are definitely cleaner - there are even fewer sibilants (in the basic version it was already great).
The same goes for space - it's better. The reverb is perfectly reproduced when the recording was made in some large space, such as a church.
The nature of the sound has not changed - the timbre is similar, there is no more bass. Only his character changed slightly.

The sound came one step closer to the High-End sound. Of course, it's not at that level yet.

To hear what the MAT technology brings, you need a very good amplifier and source. Selective and resolving. With budget equipment, the differences between the versions will be negligible.

In my opinion, the right companion for the KEF LS50 META will only be amplifiers in the AB class at a price well above 2K Euro.
Possibly a new class D - Hypex Ncore or Purifi or some Primare or NuPrime.
Only with proper amplification, the KEF LS50 META will show its full potential.

 

[pablolie]

The META version plays better than the previous version.

On the first listening I couldn't really hear the difference. The only thing I heard was that the bass became more punctual and harder.

It was only after switching the loudspeakers twice that I heard further differences.

In fact, MAT technology absorbs interference and makes the sound more natural. This is especially audible in the case of vocals. They are definitely cleaner - there are even fewer sibilants (in the basic version it was already great).
The same goes for space - it's better. The reverb is perfectly reproduced when the recording was made in some large space, such as a church.
The nature of the sound has not changed - the timbre is similar, there is no more bass. Only his character changed slightly.

The sound came one step closer to the High-End sound. Of course, it's not at that level yet.
...

The measurements show you're most likely *wanting* to hear a difference. They are *both* amazing speakers, in general terms and especially given their price. Despite KEF marketing literature, the measurements show they are basically the exact same speaker, with some "magic marketing dust" sprinkled on the newer model.
And the bass response is clearly identical (and equally lacking, they are both *much* better matched with a sub at a 70Hz xover or so).

PS: I am in no way attacking you, this has happened to *all* of us. And it is of course within the realm of statistics you have much better hearing than me and can detect a 1dB difference in your preferred frequency range (all in all I think the original LS50 look minimally more linear, but I also think it's down to statistical variance all in all).

 

[Descartes]

The measurements show you're most likely *wanting* to hear a difference. They are *both* amazing speakers, in general terms and especially given their price. Despite KEF marketing literature, the measurements show they are basically the exact same speaker, with some "magic marketing dust" sprinkled on the newer model.
And the bass response is clearly identical.
View attachment 292520

It’s the META magic

 

[muad]

The measurements show you're most likely *wanting* to hear a difference. They are *both* amazing speakers, in general terms and especially given their price. Despite KEF marketing literature, the measurements show they are basically the exact same speaker, with some "magic marketing dust" sprinkled on the newer model.
And the bass response is clearly identical (and equally lacking, they are both *much* better matched with a sub at a 70Hz xover or so).

PS: I am in no way attacking you, this has happened to *all* of us. And it is of course within the realm of statistics you have much better hearing than me and can detect a 1dB difference in your preferred frequency range (all in all I think the original LS50 look minimally more linear, but I also think it's down to statistical variance all in all).

View attachment 292520

But.... The perception of sound is relative. I agree, level matched, the bass will be identical. But the new metas have less energy in the presence region (will sound better louder, and easier to tolerate). Most people will naturally turn the volume up to compensate, which in turn makes the bottom seem a little bigger

 

[pablolie]

But.... The perception of sound is relative. I agree, level matched, the bass will be identical. But the new metas have less energy in the presence region (will sound better louder, and easier to tolerate). Most people will naturally turn the volume up to compensate, which in turn makes the bottom seem a little bigger

You bring subjective perception into the equation. I applaud what you enjoy, it works for you.

But measurement wise you have no evidence to make that claim, look at the superimposed graphs there. The two speakers are basically identical, definitely identical in overall character, and differences are within statistical variance - and will most absolutely never be hearable across a wide range of music, if.

I furthermore repeat *both* obviously have a weakness in the bass, and if you want to make audiophile claims you better match them with a sub. The THD will be much improved with both if you do a good job with them. They both are the total wrong choice if you are a bass head. Their strength in finesse, in the right environment they kill far more expensive speakers when set up right.

 

[muad]

You bring subjective perception into the equation. I applaud what you enjoy, it works for you.

But measurement wise you have no evidence to make that claim, look at the superimposed graphs there. The two speakers are basically identical, definitely identical in overall character, and differences are within statistical variance - and will most absolutely never be hearable across a wide range of music, if.

I furthermore repeat *both* obviously have a weakness in the bass, and if you want to make audiophile claims you better match them with a sub. The THD will be much improved with both if you do a good job with them. They both are the total wrong choice if you are a bass head. Their strength in finesse, in the right environment they kill far more expensive speakers when set up right.

There's a 3-4 db difference in the presence region. Which do you think you can listen to at louder volumes and will be easier to tolerate? Which do you think will sound smoother? Which of the two will likely sound better at low volumes? Which of the two will likely be played at slightly higher volume? And at that slightly higher volume, which will appear to have more abundant bass?

Everything about a frequency response is relative.

 

[pablolie]

There's a 3-4 db difference in the presence region. Which do you think you can listen to at louder volumes and will be easier to tolerate? Which do you think will sound smoother? Which of the two will likely sound better at low volumes? Which of the two will likely be played at slightly higher volume? And at that slightly higher volume, which will appear to have more abundant bass?

Everything about a frequency response is relative.

What do you define as the presence region? Both measure great. If anything the original is more linear, but again I emphasize this looks like statistical variance to me. They are both great speakers, But it is self-defeating to say the Meta is immensely superior and renders the original obsolete in any hearable way. If the original suddenly sucks, so does the Meta. Their measurement shows they are the same in character.

 

[muad]

What do you define as the presence region? Both measure great. If anything the original is more linear, but again I emphasize this looks like statistical variance to me. They are both great speakers, But it is self-defeating to say the Meta is immensely superior and renders the original obsolete in any hearable way. If the original suddenly sucks, so does the Meta. Their measurement shows they are the same in character.

I never said either one is better than the other. Although the DI is vastly improved with the meta. (LW follows the ER better) There are some people that prefer the original. To be honest, I think the region between 2-4khz is the greatest difference between the two, and that where the preference will come in. The bass is identical! Unless you listen to one louder than the other...

 

[pablolie]

I never said either one is better than the other. Although the DI is vastly improved with the meta...

There you go. *NOTHING* is *VASTLY* improved. Don't claim you're not saying something is better when you completely contradict it in the same paragraph...

. The bass is identical! Unless you listen to one louder than the other...

The bass *SUCKS* in both, if you are a bass head. I think it suffices in both for classical and jazz. And yet I use a carefully calibrated sub.

I had high hopes for the Meta given the great press approval. I gritted my teeth and got them in the available color. In my setup, with calibrated bass xover at 70Hz, there was absolutely zero hearable difference. I wasted my time trying to detect it. And I hate to waste my time with such exercises, which the audio industry tries to sucker us into way too often.

 

[muad]

There you go. *NOTHING* is *VASTLY* improved. Don't claim you're not saying something is better when you completely contradict it in the same paragraph...

The bass *SUCKS* in both, if you are a bass head. I think it suffices in both for classical and jazz. And yet I use a carefully calibrated sub.

I had high hopes for the Meta given the great press approval. I gritted my teeth and got them in the available color. In my setup, with calibrated bass xover at 70Hz, there was absolutely zero hearable difference. I wasted my time trying to detect it. And I hate to waste my time with such exercises, which the audio industry tries to sucker us into way too often.

Lol, the DI is vastly improved...

 

[pablolie]

Lol, the DI is vastly improved...

Measurements show they remain basically the same -great!- speaker with marginal differences that may as well arise from manufacturing tolerances. Not a single thing is significantly improved if one looks at their measurements - even less vastly. Except for the Meta marketing literature push. Check the measurements again. Show us where you see vast improvements.I posted them to show they are basically identical. Support your claim, please?

 

[Tangband]

There's a 3-4 db difference in the presence region. Which do you think you can listen to at louder volumes and will be easier to tolerate? Which do you think will sound smoother? Which of the two will likely sound better at low volumes? Which of the two will likely be played at slightly higher volume? And at that slightly higher volume, which will appear to have more abundant bass?

Everything about a frequency response is relative.

Yes, 3-4 dB difference in the precence region is a big difference , even bigger when using two speakers in a stereo setup. .
I would expect a very noticable sound difference between those two speaker models.

Looking beyond marketing, its clear to me that the biggest differences between ls50 and ls50 meta is probably in the passive crossover . They are not the same.

 

[pablolie]

Yes, 3-4 dB difference in the precence region is a big difference , even bigger when using two speakers in a stereo setup. .
I would expect a very noticable sound difference between those two speaker models.

Looking beyond marketing, its clear to me that the biggest differences between ls50 and ls50 meta is probably in the passive crossover . They are not the same.

The Meta deviates from the "ideal" line more than the original. It is easy to see. Look at the orange line around the 2k region. Again - you guys are buying into fake hype the measurements do not support, side by side, which is why I provided that super-imposed graph. Is this ASR or not? Subjective opinions or parroting other sources are fine if you like, but scientific they are not. Superimpose graphs, as I did, and prove your point.

 

[Tangband]

The Meta deviates from the "ideal" line more than the original. It is easy to see. Look at the orange line around the 2k region. Again - you guys are buying into fake hype the measurements do not support, side by side, which is why I provided that super-imposed graph.

Im not saying that the older ls50 is a worse sounding speaker.
Stereophile did some measurement comparisons:

KEF LS50 Meta loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the KEF LS50's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses. My estimate of the LS50 Meta's voltage sensitivity was...

www.stereophile.com

 

[muad]

Im not saying that the older ls50 is a worse sounding speaker.

I never said that the Meta was better either, but he keeps saying that I am. I was just explaining why someone might perceive more bass when comparing two similarly measuring speakers, but it's like he isn't actually reading anything I'm typing. I give up.

 

[thewas]

Pablolie keeps repeating everywhere in this forum his believes (like denying the audibility of such wide presence region deviations) and misunderstandings (like reducing a speakers behaviour to a single PIR) while not owning both.

The facts are like others also wrote above different, they have both significantly different on-axis responses (3-4 dB at a wide presence region are very audible, different directivities and different distortion rise especially at higher levels.

I own both of them since each generation was released and even had provided some in-room measurements (which are similar to the corresponding PIRs) and an EQ to match those which he could have tried listening instead of denying that such wide deviations are inaudible. I cannot stand listening to my original LS50 without anechoic based EQ above 500 Hz which is something fixed on the Meta, also at higher levels the original ones get quite "muddier".

 

[pablolie]

Pablolie keeps repeating everywhere in this forum his believes (like denying the audibility of such wide presence region deviations) and misunderstandings (like reducing a speakers behaviour to a single PIR) while not owning both.

The facts are like others also wrote above different, they have both significantly different on-axis responses (3-4 dB at a wide presence region are very audible, different directivities and different distortion rise especially at higher levels.


View attachment 292598

I own both of them since each generation was released and even had provided some in-room measurements (which are similar to the corresponding PIRs) and an EQ to match those which he could have tried listening instead of denying that such wide deviations are inaudible. I cannot stand listening to my original LS50 without anechoic based EQ above 500 Hz which is something fixed on the Meta, also at higher levels the original ones get quite "muddier".

I am glad you enjoy your subjective claims and beliefs. Every measurement ever shows how close they are, so if you hear such a big difference, hey, enjoy.

 

[thewas]

I am glad you enjoy your subjective claims and beliefs. Every measurement ever shows how close they are, so if you hear such a big difference, hey, enjoy.

Subjective nonsense or trolling is denying the audibility of a wide almost 4 dB difference in the presence region, test an EQ based on the difference of any of the measurements you wish and then come back here saying it isn't audible.