Need advice on migrating from JBL LSR305 to KEF LS50 Meta

[Ohlsdorfer]

Hello everyone! I would like to ask for advice from respected community members. I have active speakers JBL LSR305 (first generation), connected to SMSL DO100 DAC. After 8 years of use, a problem with the amplifier of one of the speakers arose - it began to play quieter, or with volume drops. In the area where I live, there is no possibility to carry out qualified repair of the speaker. In addition, I would like to try a different structure of the audio system - passive speakers and separate power amplifiers. In comparison with LSR305, I would like to improve the detail of the sound, as well as get a more voluminous and clear sound stage.
As a replacement, I am considering KEF LS50 Meta + 2 x Fosi V3 Mono. The DAC is planned to remain the same. The room is 11.8 x 9.85 feet, with a decent level of sound absorption.
Can we expect a noticeable increase in sound quality? And does it make sense to consider KEF R3 Meta in such a small room? (I feel like the LS50 Meta will be weaker in the bass department than my LSR305s)
Thanks!

 

[staticV3]

I feel like the LS50 Meta will be weaker in the bass department than my LSR305s

Correct:

 

[DMill]

I feel like the LS50 Meta will be weaker in the bass department than my LSR305s)

I’d want a sub or two with LS50s. But I’d probably want the same for R3s too.

 

[DVDdoug]

I can't recommend anything specific. I'm and old-school big-speaker guy and to me, 8-inches is barely a woofer. The LSR308 gets good reviews but I doubt you can get realistic bass you can feel in your body without a subwoofer. (I'm not recommending it... I've never heard it, and you wanted to go passive.)

I would like to improve the detail of the sound, as well as get a more voluminous and clear sound stage.

It's hard to know what you really want...

When I think of "detail' I think of high frequencies. You can easily boost the highs with EQ (or tone controls) unless the speaker is terrible with no highs. You can probably hear more detail with more absorption but most people don't like a room that's too dead. Even mixing engineers usually like some reflection when listening for enjoyment. Interestingly, Dan Clark (headphone manufacturer) says that headphones with more distortion are often described as being "detailed".

BTW - Headphones are a great way to hear little details that you might not hear with speakers. And for a couple-hundred dollars you can get excellent sounding headphones. With headphones there is very little correlation between price and sound quality... There are plenty of expensive headphones "not recommended" in the reviews here.

In his book, Floyd Tool says a couple of things about soundstage:

The important localization and soundstage information is the responsibility of the recording engineer, not the loudspeaker....

...I enjoy upmixed stereo for many, but not all, programs... Switching back to stereo results in a diminished sense of envelopment and a shrinking of the soundstage.

I will add a couple of my thoughts - Soundstage is obviously an illusion since the sound is actually coming from two speakers (assuming no surround sound or upmixing to surround). So your brain in involved and different people may experience it differently. With true surround (not upmixed stereo) you get a center channel which should help with soundstage. With headphones the soundstage illusion does vary with different people.

This is mostly intuition but regular forward-firing speakers are probably different from bi-pole/dipole or omnidirectional speakers.

I believe there is a trade-off between a "wide" soundstage (omnidirectional speakers and/or a reflective room, or surround sound) and a "precise" soundstage (forward-firing speakers in an sound-absorbing room). Although, I've read that speakers in an anechoic chamber can give the impression of the sound coming from inside the head so that's not a realistic soundstage. ("Inside the head" is very common with headphones.)



...Personally, I don't care about soundstage. I certainly enjoy stereo (and surround even more) but I'm mostly listening to rock that was multi-channel recorded so the soundstage is entirely artificial anyway, and I don't care exactly where each instrument is.

 

[kemmler3D]

In comparison with LSR305, I would like to improve the detail of the sound, as well as get a more voluminous and clear sound stage.

Depending on where you are sitting, the LS50 is likely to do a bit better, although not dramatically so - you should get less of an issue from the vertical directivity, but they're not worlds apart in on-axis or horizontals.

Since you already have room treatment, the only other suggestion I have is to do room correction to clean up the low end, and/or optimize the room treatment more. Soundstage has a lot to do with placement, so hopefully that's optimal as well.

 

[Ohlsdorfer]

Thanks for the answers everyone! It's really hard for me to describe the sound I want to get without descending into the realm of banal subjective epithets of most audio reviewers.
As for the current setup, in general I would characterize the sound character as soft and flat. It seems to have a virtual sound stage, but it is limited only by the boundaries of the speaker arrangement and is not very echeloned in depth.
As for detail, I meant the feeling of separation of instruments. Sometimes it is difficult to understand what is sounding - a double bass or a bass guitar, etc.
In general, there is a feeling of sluggish, overly viscous sound.
Perhaps this is due to the excessive muffledness of the room. Or, after all, with the very character of the sound of the JBL LSR 305.
On YouTube, I come across videos where the sound of different systems is recorded. And sometimes my jaw just hits the floor from the feeling of transparency and realism of the sound. It has long been known to everyone that it is impossible to evaluate the sound of a system from a recording, but the “wow” effect can be felt even by watching a video on YouTube.

 

[ban25]

Thanks for the answers everyone! It's really hard for me to describe the sound I want to get without descending into the realm of banal subjective epithets of most audio reviewers.
As for the current setup, in general I would characterize the sound character as soft and flat. It seems to have a virtual sound stage, but it is limited only by the boundaries of the speaker arrangement and is not very echeloned in depth.
As for detail, I meant the feeling of separation of instruments. Sometimes it is difficult to understand what is sounding - a double bass or a bass guitar, etc.
In general, there is a feeling of sluggish, overly viscous sound.
Perhaps this is due to the excessive muffledness of the room. Or, after all, with the very character of the sound of the JBL LSR 305.
On YouTube, I come across videos where the sound of different systems is recorded. And sometimes my jaw just hits the floor from the feeling of transparency and realism of the sound. It has long been known to everyone that it is impossible to evaluate the sound of a system from a recording, but the “wow” effect can be felt even by watching a video on YouTube.

Obviously, when watching a YouTube video, you are listening to a (generally) mono recording of a sound system which is then played through your own system. So, in other words, completely worthless.

There is a significant difference in SPL between the LS50 and the R3, with the LS50 struggling and hitting 100% distortion at 90 dB ish (look up the review here for full details). That's simply down to the fact that you're asking a 6.5" mid-woofer to do everything and it can only do so much. So the R3s have considerably more bass thanks to the dedicated 6.5" woofer. I'd lean toward the R3 for listening in a small to moderately sized room. The LS50 is great for near-field, such as a desktop setup. FWIW, I own two pairs of LS50 Metas and a set of R3s (non-Meta), among other KEF speakers.

 

[kemmler3D]

As for detail, I meant the feeling of separation of instruments. Sometimes it is difficult to understand what is sounding - a double bass or a bass guitar, etc.
In general, there is a feeling of sluggish, overly viscous sound.

Your room is probably to blame to some extent. You might get better stereo imaging from the LS50s but not dramatically, because it depends on wall reflections to a significant extent, the speakers can only get you so far.

Perhaps this is due to the excessive muffledness of the room. Or, after all, with the very character of the sound of the JBL LSR 305.

Probably both, but from what you describe the room is definitely holding you back. I'd recommend messing with treatments if you can. It's possible that you have over-treated the room - absorbing too much treble without controlling the bass does this, so it could lead to a 'sluggish', "viscous" sound. If you want to expand the soundstage you can remove treatments from the first reflection points and move them somewhere else or just get rid of them.

Adding diffusion elsewhere may improve soundstage, it's really anecdotal / subjective but some people have said it helps.

This would be a good time to do measurements with REW and diagnose the problem. If you see that RT60 is much higher in low frequencies, you can remove a bit of absorptive material and replace it with diffusers (to balance the spectrum a bit) or you can look into bass traps.

Also, if you are not already doing room correction with PEQ / DSP it will make a huge difference, although you may still have slow decay in the bass.

On YouTube, I come across videos where the sound of different systems is recorded. And sometimes my jaw just hits the floor from the feeling of transparency and realism of the sound. It has long been known to everyone that it is impossible to evaluate the sound of a system from a recording, but the “wow” effect can be felt even by watching a video on YouTube.

Don't put much stock in that. It's actually worse than evaluating a TV based on someone making a video of the TV and putting it on youtube, because at least the TV's color isn't affected (too much) by the room they put it in.

 

[Doodski]

@Ohlsdorfer are you using a PC for a source? If so then you should get a PEQ installed and reap the huge benefit of having PEQ. I can assist with a recommendation(s) for what PEQ to install for Windows or MAC.

EQ Software for Windows, Linux, macOS, iOS/iPadOS and Android.

Any suggestions are welcome. Post suggestions here. I will gather the details and add them. Thanks. :D This will be organized as results come in. @sweetchaos made a guide for PEQ filter data input and operation. For crossover software go here. Windows: AutoEQ four easy steps to make your...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Ohlsdorfer]

I'd lean toward the R3 for listening in a small to moderately sized room. The LS50 is great for near-field, such as a desktop setup.

It would be interesting to know what KEF itself says about the recommended room dimensions for the R3 Meta. I've seen this information somewhere, but I can't find it now. I'm more interested in them than the LS50 Meta, at least in terms of greater bass solidity. But I'm concerned that they'll be too "cramped" in a 12x10 foot room.

 

[Ohlsdorfer]

Probably both, but from what you describe the room is definitely holding you back. I'd recommend messing with treatments if you can. It's possible that you have over-treated the room - absorbing too much treble without controlling the bass does this, so it could lead to a 'sluggish', "viscous" sound.

Thanks for the advice. The room is going through renovations and I plan to get rid of some things that are too absorbent. Hopefully this will improve the soundstage situation.

 

[VMAT4]

This comes "late". But, will you be nearfield listening or farfield listening? What I'm getting at is if you are maintaining a desktop system, where you will be sitting within three feet of your speakers, go with studio monitors. If you'll be sitting six or more feet away the KEFs should be good. From my experience passive speakers don't work well for nearfield listening, YMMV.

 

[Ohlsdorfer]

But, will you be nearfield listening or farfield listening?

No, listening is definitely not at a table. The arrangement of the speakers and listening position is an equilateral triangle. From the listening position to each speaker is approximately 6.5 feet.

 

[VMAT4]

No, listening is definitely not at a table. The arrangement of the speakers and listening position is an equilateral triangle. From the listening position to each speaker is approximately 6.5 feet.

Enjoy the KEFs!

 

[Moonbase]

This comes "late". But, will you be nearfield listening or farfield listening? What I'm getting at is if you are maintaining a desktop system, where you will be sitting within three feet of your speakers, go with studio monitors. If you'll be sitting six or more feet away the KEFs should be good. From my experience passive speakers don't work well for nearfield listening, YMMV.

I understand your concern but the ls50 meta are meant for near-field use. I have mine setup in an office and switch between at desk and around 6feet. They provide a great sound stage in either.

 

[ban25]

It would be interesting to know what KEF itself says about the recommended room dimensions for the R3 Meta. I've seen this information somewhere, but I can't find it now. I'm more interested in them than the LS50 Meta, at least in terms of greater bass solidity. But I'm concerned that they'll be too "cramped" in a 12x10 foot room.

They'll be fine. They're bookshelves and not particularly massive, so they won't be cramped. Mine are used for rear surround duty.

 

[Ohlsdorfer]

And I'm also interested in how the R3 Meta behave at low volume? I read somewhere that due to their low sensitivity, performing at low volume is not their strong point.
Or can a very powerful amplifier compensate for this deficiency?

 

[ban25]

And I'm also interested in how the R3 Meta behave at low volume? I read somewhere that due to their low sensitivity, performing at low volume is not their strong point.
Or can a very powerful amplifier compensate for this deficiency?

Sensitivity just determines how much power is required to achieve a given SPL at 1 meter distance. Lower volumes are by definition easier on your amplifier when it comes to lower sensitivity speakers.

That said, the R3 Meta is 2 dB higher sensitivity than the LS50 Meta. It can deliver 87 dB @ 1 meter with 1W from the amplifier. That's quite loud!

 

[Steven Holt]

I'm going to post this as just food for thought, b/c I will never go against using the LS50's or R3's. They are splendid speakers. But -- have you considered using the JBL L52's, paired with the Yamaha AS-801 (or 701) and paired with a sub? Because man, I guarantee ya, it will ring your doorbell!

 

[ehabheikal]

With the money u save from getting ls50m rather than r3 meta you could get 2 smaller subs like svs sb1000 pro and have a setup that blows th r3.
That is my setup.