LS50 vs LS50 Meta Comparison

[Opal]

Hmm unless one's hearing is deteriorating, 3-4db difference is very obvious...

 

[phoenixdogfan]

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 agree. I own both, and while I used both EQ and Dirac with a sub on both versions, I still found the Meta version noticably better. Smoother, less strident, more natural and easier to listen to in the presence region. I personally think it's more about the off axis reflections which seem nearly perfect with the Metas. They just seem smoother and more natural to me. The OGs while very good, just seem a little bit off by comparison, and I found that noticable immediately. When you live with speakers for a while, subtle difference just aren't all that subtle, at least not to my ears.

 

[Piopio]

I agree. I own both, and while I used both EQ and Dirac with a sub on both versions, I still found the Meta version noticably better. Smoother, less strident, more natural and easier to listen to in the presence region. I personally think it's more about the off axis reflections which seem nearly perfect with the Metas. They just seem smoother and more natural to me. The OGs while very good, just seem a little bit off by comparison, and I found that noticable immediately. When you live with speakers for a while, subtle difference just aren't all that subtle, at least not to my ears.

Exactly. I don't understand people who ignore listening tests. Measurements are important, but our ears are the final judge.

 

[pablolie]

.. trolling ...

Mirror, mirror on the wall... off into the ignore list...

Here's what another troll, John A, measured in Stereophile... :-D Oh yeah, vast differences in the presence region... [the original LS50 is in blue] 3-4db? Nowhere to be seen. In the 1-2kHz region *both* deviate from 0, I'd think it's a 2dB difference in that very narrow range. Presence region (4-6kHz) seems 1dB.

Some conclusions in the measuring tests there: ".. The two models offer identical in-room responses below 300Hz. There are two small peaks and dips that have not been eliminated by the spatial averaging, and the midbass region is shelved down, though the extension is helped by the lowest-frequency mode in my listening room ..Like the Anniversary Edition LS50, the LS50 Meta's cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.10) features astonishingly clean decay at all frequencies .. "

The only difference, JA basically states, is ".. Both speakers have a little too much in-room energy in the upper midrange, but the Meta's response is flatter in the presence region and there is a little more output in the high treble than with the Anniversary Edition ..". Clearly minimally so, though, if again you check the graph, but you can hear whatever you wish. Oh, you already do.

Nope. not any measured evidence of big differences.

 

[pablolie]

Exactly. I don't understand people who ignore listening tests. Measurements are important, but our ears are the final judge.

Said nobody else. The whole premise of this website is to dispell the myth that our ears triumph over measurements. Then again this thread shows that the force of subjectivism is strong with some.

 

[thewas]

Mirror, mirror on the wall... off into the ignore list...

Here's what another troll, John A, measured in Stereophile... :-D Oh yeah, vast differences in the presence region... [the original LS50 is in blue]

Some conclusions in the measuring tests there: ".. The two models offer identical in-room responses below 300Hz. There are two small peaks and dips that have not been eliminated by the spatial averaging, and the midbass region is shelved down, though the extension is helped by the lowest-frequency mode in my listening room ..Like the Anniversary Edition LS50, the LS50 Meta's cumulative spectral-decay plot on the tweeter axis (fig.10) features astonishingly clean decay at all frequencies .. "

The only difference, JA basically states, is ".. Both speakers have a little too much in-room energy in the upper midrange, but the Meta's response is flatter in the presence region and there is a little more output in the high treble than with the Anniversary Edition ..". Clearly minimally so, though, if again you check the graph, but you can hear whatever you wish. Oh, you already do.

Nope. not any measured evidence of big differences.

The differences are similar to the ones the ASR measurements and mine show.
And since you quote JA why do you just do it selectively?
Here some more of his text where he writes about both generations:

"Both speakers have a little too much in-room energy in the upper midrange, but the Meta's response is flatter in the presence region and there is a little more output in the high treble than with the Anniversary Edition.
...
The Metas painted a transparent window into the recorded soundstage, not just with this recording but with everything I played. I was continually surprised by how recordings I thought I knew well were presented with detail that I had not fully appreciated with the earlier LS50s.
...
Fagen's lispy voice had a little more treble energy than it had with the 2012 LS50s, but it was more physically present in the room with the LS50 Metas; vocal images were especially palpable with these speakers.
...
(From the final conclusions)
The LS50 Meta equals its predecessor in that respect but improves on its presentation of low-level detail and has a little more treble energy. As a result, it presents a more transparent window into the recorded soundstage without compromising the ability to communicate the music's message."



As said for anyone with real interest if their tonal differences are audible it just a matter of few minutes to enter the few PEQs I created from my PIRs or even some other self made from other comparative data but it seems that is avoided as it would harm some egos.

 

[locoliberty]

Interesting read here, thought about getting the metas as well. And given the comparison and same experience with selling(selling anything sucks). guess ill rotate these to the living room if I ever have money to upgrade... but what to upgrade the stereo room too. Thinking floorstanding...

 

[Tom Schneider]

My LS50 Meta's and KC62 sub are still my mainstays in my listening room. I have been playing with open baffle single driver speakers lately. Once the baffles are made I'll do a comparison.

 

[Tom Schneider]

Side note is I'm currently listening to my LS50 Metas in a semi-nearfield configuration. Seems strange to see them in the middle of the room but it does help to cancel out my room influence. It also opened up the bass without even having to move my sub. My listening room is a loft which has an open side to a stairwell so it's a little tricky to balance. I've not ventured into room treatment but having the LS50 Metas in the middle of the room away from all room boundaries really does make them shine in my room.

 

[thewas]

Hmm unless one's hearing is deteriorating, 3-4db difference is very obvious...

And even then especially at this region such difference is easily audible.

To hopefully finalise this tedious discussion here is also a direct audio recording comparison of both where despite the not very discriminating music samples used the audible difference is really obvious and in accordance to their measurement differences:

 

[Tangband]

And even then especially at this region such difference is easily audible.

To hopefully finalise this tedious discussion here is also a direct audio recording comparison of both where despite the not very discriminating music samples used the audible difference is really obvious and in accordance to their measurement differences:

…and those audible differences can probably turn to almost* zero if one uses the PEQ funktion in a WiiM pro with the old ls50.
Good news for those who have that older model.

*( In the new Meta ls50 they use another crossover with possible other steepness in topology - that also makes a small difference and this cant be bettered with PEQ.)

 

[thewas]

…and those audible differences can probably turn to almost* zero if one uses the PEQ funktion in a WiiM pro with the old ls50.
Good news for those who have that older model.

*( In the new Meta ls50 they use another crossover with possible other steepness in topology - that also makes a small difference and this cant be bettered with PEQ.)

The differences can be significantly reduced but not made to really zero as the distortion and also crossover frequency and slopes are different which results also to a different directivity, I own both since they were released and had written more about them here.

 

[Tangband]

The differences can be significantly reduced but not made to really zero as the distortion and also crossover frequency and slopes are different which results also to a different directivity, I own both since they were released and had written more about them here.

Looking at your measurements, It looks like the Meta have a slightly better drive unit with slightly less distortion, true.

 

[thewas]

Looking at your measurements, It looks like the Meta have a slightly better drive unit with slightly less distortion, true.

Yes, more and better insights and comparisons can be found in the corresponding white paper https://assets.kef.com/pdf_doc/LS50WII/KEF-LS50Meta-LS50WirelessII-WhitePaper.pdf

 

[pablolie]

Looking at your measurements, It looks like the Meta have a slightly better drive unit with slightly less distortion, true.

That is what the marketing white paper says. And if you don't think KEF wants to push you into an upgrade cycle, you are a tiny bit naive, taking manufacturer collateral material for ultimate truth.

The measurements in ASR show *both* versions have deviations from the ideal line [for whomever that bell significantly tolls], the original overshoots in the presence region by a bit, the Meta undershoots by a bit. No more than 1-2dB in either case. Take your pick.

 

[AudioJester]

I would not bother upgrading.
But if buying from scratch the meta is the better speaker.

If your happy with your setup, enjoy some music, no point arguing semantics

 

[thewas]

That is what the marketing white paper says.

And all 3rd party measurements also confirmed.

 

[Danaxus]

At least KEF are consistently honest about their measurements.

Is 1-2db even audible with pink noise, let alone actual music?

 

[thewas]

At least KEF are consistently honest about their measurements.

Is 1-2db even audible with pink noise, let alone actual music?

Yes, especially in that region (and actually more 2-4 dB), you can test it yourself with the recording posted above.

 

[Impossible]

I love the kef og ls50, more so then the kef reference which I have. My only wish would be that the ls50 had a bit more headroom for dynamic range for movies.

To fix this my idea is to stack kef ls50 in LCR e.g. Left 1 and left 2 have independent channels so can be time and phase aligned independently. Then same for centre and right.

I would keep approx 30 cm vertical gap between each to minimise cancellation.

I have a Trinnov altitude so I can have basically any channel configuration I want. Timing can be dialed in to 0.01ms and level matching is very precise. I can also use active crossover feature and let the Trinnov align each channel as if I was aligning 2 drivers of an active speaker and basicly set the high pass and low pass filter to 1.


Does anyone see an issue with this or has anyone tried anything like this, maybe lessons learned?