Monitor Audio Platinum 3G

[thewas]

As far as you love John, he was revel user and change his revel for the kef blades, he didnt bought any Canton.

You are confusing John Atkinson with Kal Rubinson there, JA owns though a pair of original LS50 and considered upgrading to the LS50 Meta.

 

[Bozon]

You are confusing John Atkinson with Kal Rubinson there, JA owns though a pair of original LS50 and considered upgrading to the LS50 Meta.

LS50 and Meta are a far cry from Canton Reference speakers. I had them both, I actually bought the original LS50 twice as the Kef marketing machine is so high and the reviews where so intense that I believed that the first pair was defective. It was not.

Compared to a Reference 9k side-to-side they get harder with a little volume, they don't have dynamic, the resolution and PRAT on the Cantons is above and beyond, the same with the sound stage. LS50 (and all Kef's speakers) are very difficult to properly pair to make them not sound boring. The only amp of all I tried that somewhat worked on the LS50 and managed to put some life on them was a Naim XS2 that is an insanely "violent" and "insidious" sounding amp. Meta version is an important improvement over the original even as the measurements are mostly the same, but still a far cry from the Canton's 9k (7K is better than 9k and not worth any comparison).

A (now) friend of mine that was an inconditional LS50 fan came to my home to hear the Cantons. After his visit he never defended the Kefs again.

The person that bought LS50 Metas from me heard the 9K also when he made the purchase and, after that, he insisted to me to sell him the Cantons when he knew I had purchased the 7K as an upgrade.

The R3 is a worse speaker than the LS50. The LS50 is tonaly accurate, the R3 is not. As I commentend previously, on the R3, some instruments sound detuned. Specially electric guitars. The R3 has more bass because it's additional driver and cabinet volume, but overall it is an inferior speaker. LS50's price is correct for it's performance but its performance is nothing to die for on the first place. I know this is ASR, but when Kef's diehards that hear with measurements instead of ears actually open their minds and go to audition the Canton's Reference I think they would have the right to comment, not before. Canton's measurements could be a little worse than Kef's but those worse numbers can't be heard by human beings. On the contrary. The superior real life performance on the Cantons can be easily heard.

(As my final comment here since this is a Monitor Audio Platinum thread after all) I would take a Monitor Audio Platinum pair over a Kef every day of the week. MA's Platinum line measures a lot worse but, on reality, sounds much, much better. Their treble is silk smooth and their bass is marvelous: textured, rich and full but...

I will not take a Monitor Audio Silver nor a Gold. The great measurements on the Silver don't translate to real sound. Silver sounds like any speaker on it's price level. The Gold sounds better, but it is a bright sounding speaker and needs EQ to tame that treble. Nevertheless, the current MA Silver line with it's own sound defects, is more accurate sounding and has better PRAT than Kef's R line. I will choose the Silver over an R even as I consider the Silver a subpar sounding speaker.

 

[Bozon]

Now, my plan is doing the same, invest the 2-3k difference vs the 7K in dual subwoofers.

The problem is the kef reference is an exemplary dual 6.5” design, while the R is just a good line but needs EQ with no major defects and the Cantons reference is a good line with defects and needs eq.

That is absolutely false. R line can't be corrected with EQ because it has uncorrectable defects from its own design. How do you fix guitar notes that sound detuned? how do you make a speaker to have a faster transient response with EQ to actually get instrument texture and proper rhythmic peace? You can't.

Sound-wise, Canton reference line is on the same level than Kef's reference (Kef Reference is a little better than the Canton and itself a much better speaker than the R. I have heard them both).

Have you ever auditioned Canton Reference speakers on the first place?

 

[Bozon]

Show the data, go ahead. The R series has been reviewed by Amir and Erin, both has the most advance measurements system.
Too much words without any data.

Canton Reference 7K Loudspeaker Lab Report

Lab Report Measured on the Reference 7K's midrange axis – its most likely listening position – the loudspeaker's forward response [Graph 1] indicates both a boost to bass (below 500Hz) and treble (above 8kHz). It's also worth noting that the –1.5dB dip just prior to the 3kHz crossover increases...

www.hifinews.com

---------

Canton Reference 3 K

V roce 1974 se dali dohromady čtyři nadšenci do dobrého zvuku a jak už to tak bývá, vznikla značka – tentokrát konkrétně německý Canton, který si vytyčil za cíl to samé, co prakticky jakákoliv jiná firma. Tedy vyrobit to nejlepší, co současnost umožňuje, Canton si jako svůj obor zvolil...

www.hifi-voice.com

............
There is a lot more measurements from the KEFs, im waiting for your to do the same. As someone said before, you have no idea how to read these graphs, too much talking.
Or you were talking about the Canton Reference? because these has uncorrectable defects from it's driver, the data don't lie. Too much magic thinking.

Maybe KEF needs to put a image of it's crossover instead of a good White paper with measurements for people like you.
------------
And while the same site review the R line

Keep repeting that, maybe one day you will believe, after all KEF sell a lot of more speakers, as the guy said above, people don't see measurements they go to listening the speakers . The real world said quite the opposite.

I will answer you the same that I said to other Kef diehards that hear with graphics instead of their ears on my country and have changed its mind after following my advice: go and audition a pair of Canton Reference.

But since you are afraid to confront the reality, I will give you another peace of advice that might be easier for you to accept: Sell your Kef R and purchase a Q Concept 500 instead. Those speakers have impecable measurements (to make your graphics hearing happy) and sound above and beyond of any Kef R possibly can dream.

 

[dogmamann]

You're afraid of the reality
I will give you another chance to stop your magic thinking and posting objective data, go ahead.

But someone as already told you, you have no clue how to read these graphs.



Apparently you are afraid to the reality, you read some graphs in the bad way and thinked you have a '' gem '', don't worry the reality will not change.

--
Edit:
For example this guy couldn't care less about measurements, he has the Vento and upgrade to the R11 instead of Reference 7K nearly the same price

Clearly he didn't pick the Reference 7k instead of his R11, but you are too afraid to the reality

The R11 IS 6000 USD vs the 7K 7000 USD.

That’s an old vento not even the latest version. And if you looks at his older videos, you can easily understand he has no clue about audio. but I won’t say he is wrong in choosing the Rs over the Ventos, ventos don’t have that much extension and for beginners in audio, more bass is always impressive. I get his point. R11 has more extension even than reference 7K, but that’s the only thing it has. And ventos are quite a step down to references in cantons line

 

[thewas]

LS50 and Meta are a far cry from Canton Reference speakers. I had them both, I actually bought the original LS50 twice as the Kef marketing machine is so high and the reviews where so intense that I believed that the first pair was defective. It was not.

Compared to a Reference 9k side-to-side they get harder with a little volume, they don't have dynamic, the resolution and PRAT on the Cantons is above and beyond, the same with the sound stage. LS50 (and all Kef's speakers) are very difficult to properly pair to make them not sound boring. The only amp of all I tried that somewhat worked on the LS50 and managed to put some life on them was a Naim XS2 that is an insanely "violent" and "insidious" sounding amp. Meta version is an important improvement over the original even as the measurements are mostly the same, but still a far cry from the Canton's 9k (7K is better than 9k and not worth any comparison).

A (now) friend of mine that was an inconditional LS50 fan came to my home to hear the Cantons. After his visit he never defended the Kefs again.

The person that bought LS50 Metas from me heard the 9K also when he made the purchase and, after that, he insisted to me to sell him the Cantons when he knew I had purchased the 7K as an upgrade.

The R3 is a worse speaker than the LS50. The LS50 is tonaly accurate, the R3 is not. As I commentend previously, on the R3, some instruments sound detuned. Specially electric guitars. The R3 has more bass because it's additional driver and cabinet volume, but overall it is an inferior speaker. LS50's price is correct for it's performance but its performance is nothing to die for on the first place. I know this is ASR, but when Kef's diehards that hear with measurements instead of ears actually open their minds and go to audition the Canton's Reference I think they would have the right to comment, not before. Canton's measurements could be a little worse than Kef's but those worse numbers can't be heard by human beings. On the contrary. The superior real life performance on the Cantons can be easily heard.

(As my final comment here since this is a Monitor Audio Platinum thread after all) I would take a Monitor Audio Platinum pair over a Kef every day of the week. MA's Platinum line measures a lot worse but, on reality, sounds much, much better. Their treble is silk smooth and their bass is marvelous: textured, rich and full but...

I will not take a Monitor Audio Silver nor a Gold. The great measurements on the Silver don't translate to real sound. Silver sounds like any speaker on it's price level. The Gold sounds better, but it is a bright sounding speaker and needs EQ to tame that treble. Nevertheless, the current MA Silver line with it's own sound defects, is more accurate sounding and has better PRAT than Kef's R line. I will choose the Silver over an R even as I consider the Silver a subpar sounding speaker.

I see, "violent" and "insidious" sounding amp and the famous PRAT...

But why do people have to generalise their personal preference as a golden rule?

I like and owned in the last decades both several Canton and KEF loudspeakers, personally I would prefer a 9K to a LS50 (Meta) without a sub and also the old LS50 for my taste necessarily needs an EQ in the presence region, but with subwoofer (and EQ for the non Meta) the LS50 models have kept their position in my listening spaces compared to several good loudspeakers. People must understand that the interaction of loudspeakers and rooms is complex and the perception is individual and depends on several factors like habituation, listening levels and source material.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Paul McGowan of PS Audio has said several times that he can make products that measure great but sound awful.

Some of the products he sells have been reviewed here.

PS Audio DirectStream DAC Mk.2 measurements

-80 dB ultrasonic noise floor, amazing... For 8 k usd. https://www.stereophile.com/content/ps-audio-perfectwave-directstream-mk2-da-processor-measurements

www.audiosciencereview.com

PS Audio PowerPlant 3 Review

This is a review, listening tests and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Power Plant 3 AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,499. There are no front panel controls other than standby/power switch on the left. To activate the MultiWave and ClearWave requires...

www.audiosciencereview.com

PS Audio Ultimate Outlet Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Ultimate AC Outlet. It is on kind loan from a member and cost US $299 when available in 2002: The device is is the typical noise/surge filter targeting audiophile market. Not much to the front or the back: I can't see any safety...

www.audiosciencereview.com

PS Audio PowerPlant 12 Review (AC Regenerator)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio PowerPlant 12 (P12) AC regenerator. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $5,499. PS Audio nails the industrial design of the unit. I really like the casework as well as the look of the various graphical meters as you see above...

www.audiosciencereview.com

PS Audio Stellar Review (Phono Preamplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Phono stage. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $2,499 from the company direct. I kind of like the look of the PS Audio gear. They don't look very high end but not budget either: I was extremely surprised by how...

www.audiosciencereview.com

PS Audio Noise Harvester AC Cleaner Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Noise Harvester and AC Cleaner. It is on kind loan from a member and sells for $99. The harvester is a bit bigger and uglier than typical phone charger: Claim to fame is that AC noise is captured gradually and then discharged all of...

www.audiosciencereview.com

PS Audio M700 Monoblock Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar M700 Power Amplifier. It is kindly sent in by a member and costs US $2998 for a pair from the company direct. The M700 is quite heavy for a class-D amplifier. I picked it up by hand and nearly hurt my back trying to hold it...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Review and Measurements of PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio PerfectWave DirectStream DAC. It is on kind loan from a member. The unit that I have has the network "bridge" streaming option and costs US $6,899. Without that option it costs US $5,999. The DS DAC is quite heft with a textured matt...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Review and Measurements of PS Audio NuWave DAC

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio NuWave DAC. It is on kind loan from a member. Looks like the NuWave DAC came out back in 2012 and it is now discontinued. The original cost was US $999. Strangely, I found two of them used on ebay selling for US $1,500! So the price...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Review and Measurements of PS Audio S300 PWR Amp

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar S300 Stereo Power Amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The S300 costs US $1,499 from the company. Fitting the design language of the rest of the PS Audio and using similar enclosure, the S300 is quite hefty considering...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Review and Measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Stellar Gain Cell DAC. It is on kind loan from someone who read my review of PS Audio DirectStream DAC and wanted to know how this model of PS Audio DAC performs. The Stellar Gain Cell costs US $1,699 which as high-end audio DACs go is...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Review and Measurements of PS Audio Sprout100

This is a review and detailed measurements of the PS Audio Sprout100 integrated DAC, headphone and power amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The Sprout100 is an upgrade over the original Sprout and costs USD $599. I remember the first time I saw the Sprout at an audio show. I...

www.audiosciencereview.com

You can decide for yourself whether you want to believe what he says or not.

Jim

 

[Deleted member 21219]

On the same way, measurements can't measure all aspects of an speaker performance. Measurements can tell you only a partial view. That's why you need actual product experience.

There is no non-trivial aspect of speaker performance that cannot be measured. Not only that, but tests and measurements go far, far beyond "product experience". The human hearing system is not an instrument of high sensitivity nor of high reliability.

If is, however, and excellent instrument of bias.

42 Audio Illusions & Phenomena!

(5 Part series, worth a watch, Part 2 especially)

www.audiosciencereview.com

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jim

 

[thewas]

Paul McGowan of PS Audio has said several times that he can make products that measure great but sound awful.

This is an often used audiophool claim but always without any concrete examples, guess why?

My own measurements contradict what you are saying.

Could you please post them here, measurements are always interesting and welcome.

Fixed, It's 1.5% not 1%. You are not very good with numbers.


Edit: Thewas pointed he prefered the 9k over the ls50 without subs and I aggre with that, it's FR is more linear than the Canton floorstanding and it's bass tunning is much lower than the LS50 alone. But the problem is with the 9K money you can buy a sub to the LS50, and that combo is a lot more famous than the 9K

The ls50 without subs tend to distor a lot and the cone movement is a know problem, with subswoofer is another history if you can cross this at 80hz 100hz 140hz with subwoofers like KC62 that came with built-in filter. Thats why the ls50m combo KC62 sells a lot.

I find the LS50 alone boring, I need BASS in my life.

According to the Harman research most people love and need bass, just many don't realise it till they get or hear some well room corrected subwoofers, it was the same with me in the past. Also listening levels depend a lot on the size of the room and listening distance, I use my two LS50+subwoofers setups at 1m and 2m respectively, for distances >3 m I would probably use different loudspeakers if I would want to listen at high SPLs.

@Bozon i don’t have he 7k now. But you can do one thing, take a video of your 7k, while playing a tone of 2 kHz at 80 db and raise the volume to 90db. If there is audible distortion it should be audible in the video too. Please keep a audio level meter in the video somewhere in a visible manner.

This will solve the argument once and forever. Don’t worry I had tried it there is no tonal change, the will just increases in loudness proving there is no difference in audible distortion.

@thewas won’t this work?

It should work, personally though I doubt that it will be noticeably audible and I think multitone distortion measurements reveal problems that are mode audible than just pure single tone harmonic distortion.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Of course measurements can be much more physics-wise precise that your senses. The problem with this argument is that the speakers are made to be heard with human beign ears and to reproduce real music recorded from musical instruments not artificial tone sweepts.

Measurements are a good guidance to uncover fundamental product quality issues. But the final speaker quality judgement will (or should be) the audition. Always.

This insinuates that a human being, listening to a speaker, can hear some characteristic that tests and measurements do not show. Is that what you mean to say?

Jim

 

[bo_knows]

Let's see what Andrew Robinson (339K subscribers) has to say about Monitor Audio Platinum 200. Shall we?

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Measurements are incomplete. Audition is always the final quality test.

Most measurements are incomplete because to present a full and exhaustive suite of measurements takes a great deal of time (and money) and the presentation takes a great deal of bandwidth. Not only that, but manufacturers are prone to presenting measurements that favor their products.

Auditions tell the listener very little about quality. They only allow the listener to favor their preferences ..... and sometimes, biases.

You are the fool here ....

Whatever we think of other posters here, it is best not to indulge in name-calling and provocation.

Jim

 

[Bozon]

Most measurements are incomplete because to present a full and exhaustive suite of measurements takes a great deal of time (and money) and the presentation takes a great deal of bandwidth. Not only that, but manufacturers are prone to presenting measurements that favor their products.

Auditions tell the listener very little about quality. They only allow the listener to favor their preferences ..... and sometimes, biases.



Whatever we think of other posters here, it is best not to indulge in name-calling and provocation.

Jim

I agree with you on this. That's what I am trying to say. I don't dispute the importance of measurements. On the contrary, I endorse measurements. I see them as necessary but not sufficient.

Regarding the "fool" I am sorry. I will delete that.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

Regarding the "fool" I am sorry. I will delete that.

Thank you.

He is really good at name-calling,

Is it really necessary to ramp this up? This is supposed to be a site for discourse based on science, not a "my speaker is better than your speaker" style of argument. Please be civil.

Jim

 

[Bozon]

What tonal inaccuracy cannot be corrected?, can you elaborate more your post instead of just throwing magical thinking?, because the 7k is not neutral speaker.

Instruments sound detuned and that can't be fixed with EQ. (I have already said that but you choose to ignore it in your favor). Go to listen a real (or learn how to play) guitar. After that, compare how the same guitar sounds on the R.

“The Revels have been criticized for having subpar quality crossover components and it's fair share of sound defects because of this miserable cost saving route. If you replace the components they get a lot better” - Bozon

Arguments like that don’t work if you dont post graphs

Use google. Search for internals on the Revels. GR research has a video if you are willing to take a step that might disprove your bias.

Keep repeating that you're brand agnostic, if that makes your feeling better

Keep denying to take an audition, If that make you feel better about your purchase decision.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

GR research has a video if you are willing to take a step that might disprove your bias.

Making reference to GR Research on this site will not bring you love and kisses!

Jim

 

[Bozon]

Making reference to GR Research on this site will not bring you love and kisses!

Jim

I know (I saw the cables video). But he shows the speaker internals and that can't be disputed as fact.

 

[Bozon]

He is really good at name-calling, but at posting data and facts, not. He only name-calling that German guy for not picking his speakers

I haven't disputed any of your posted measurements. I don't need to post my measurements because of this. What I am trying to make you understand that those measurements are not the complete picture and you need to take an audition. It is very easy.

Regarding the German guy, he contradicted himself AFTER he bought the Rs. That is purchase decision bias. I don't care If his choice is the same that I did if he haven't disprove himself. I will never dispute if someone tells me "I heard that speaker and liked more". On the countrary I will respect and support him.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I know (I saw the cables video). But he shows the speaker internals and that can't be disputed as fact.

You are correct. The internals are not able to be disputed. However, their effectiveness can be misrepresented. A disparaging remark was made regarding their quality, and by extension, their effectiveness. No evidence has been offered.

Jim

 

[Bozon]

You are correct. The internals are not able to be disputed. However, their effectiveness can be misrepresented. A disparaging remark was made regarding their quality, and by extension, their effectiveness. No evidence has been offered.

Jim

Point noted. However, he publishes the measurements before and after he has modified the components.

I understand that is possible not to trust him (and he had made this easy), but common sense tells you that if you replace cheap components with better ones you should get an improvement (unless the bottleneck is elsewere of course)