Thanks for the first impressions. It sounds like a worthwhile upgrade.Whatever the case, it seems pretty clear to me that KEF has made a significantly better speaker.
Are you going to measure and post the spinorama for these puppies as well?
Thanks for the first impressions. It sounds like a worthwhile upgrade.Whatever the case, it seems pretty clear to me that KEF has made a significantly better speaker.
Thanks for the first impressions. It sounds like a worthwhile upgrade.
Are you going to measure and post the spinorama for these puppies as well?
I had the previous version LS50W, eventually found out it came with only 12month warranty for electronics for a reason. Lasted 2 years, needed both boards on both speakers replaced. Preferred the simpler setup, but have now gone back to passives. Keen to hear the new LS50 Meta though.
First impressions after a few hours of listening. 100% subjective and I'm obviously I've already seen KEF's measurements, so that may be coloring my impressions. Grain of salt and all that.
But so far... man, these are sounding great.
The one thing that I can say with a fair bit of confidence is that the LS50 Meta sounds like a very different speaker to the original. Granted, I haven't heard the LS50 a couple of years, but from my recollection, this speaker sounds totally different. I'm not getting any hint of brightness. It sounds fuller and, dare I say it, a hair "warm" of neutral. I always thought the original passive LS50 sounded forward/brightish' but a little cold and slightly hollow. The LS50 Metas are sounding excellent at very low volumes too.
Even though KEF rates these the same as the original for bass extension, these seem surprisingly weighty. I mean, I'd still cross them with a sub, but I didn't find them lacking in bass the way I did the original. Granted, I have them quite near to the rear wall and have not tried the bungs yet.
I'm not trying to build more hype for these speakers and have tried to actively prevent myself from thinking that way. I mostly liked the originals, but I wasn't crazy about them, so I'm not exactly feeling nostalgia. The metamaterial is cool, but I don't know what impact it has on audible sound quality beyond the actual frequency response. Whatever the case, it seems pretty clear to me that KEF has made a significantly better speaker.
They also don't sound slightly recessed in the mids to me the way the R3 did. Slightly laid back, perhaps, but the R3 had a slight dullness as its worst bit of coloration.
I even think I'm enjoying them more than the Chora 806 that's my usual reference -- or perhaps they jive with the new space better. That's a pretty big deal -- there have been a few speakers that I know are technically better than the Choras that I haven't enjoyed as much, largely because of my preference for its extended wide directivity.
But the LS50 are imaging really well. It's possible their narrower-than-the-focals (I think!) directivity is helping negate the asymmetrical setup in my new place, or their directivity is just better. The vertical reflections will obviously be better controlled. They seem to be more stable about head movement/listening window than the Chora too.
I haven't even finished setting up my sound system and placement in my new place, so who knows. But to be fair, the speakers are currently just sitting on top of the Choras, so the different height might have something to do with it.
My impressions aside, thought I'd point out something interesting in the manual. I've previously complained that the R3 shows the speaker with toe in when KEF has told me the speakers are designed to be heard without toe-in and they measure better that way.
The LS50 Meta manual, however, specifically suggests using little to no toe-in, even for home theater.
View attachment 88132
So at the very least, this KEF speaker is designed to be heard off-axis. I'd like to think me complaining about it had something to do with the manual change, but I'm not that important
This is what we'd expect to be the optimal setup, given the on-axis diffraction in the spin but a much smoother listening window and front early reflections curve.
More impressions to follow -- should get a lot more listening time over the weekend.
Your latter impressions echo my thoughts a lot. I had already started typing my impressions before I saw your post, but as you see I thought much the same.
I really enjoyed the sound but it took some time to tame the high frequencies. Primarily, I angled the speakers a bit straight ahead which took advantage of their improved frequency response slightly off-axis as it relates to the high frequencies. Sometimes, I would cut the high frequencies by 0.5 db to tame the edge. The KEF app was frustrating, to say the least, and the stability was the worst part of this experience. I did enjoy the digital app to integrate the subwoofer and the Wireless, quick and seemless. The speakers would go fairly loud but compressed a bit at headbanging levels. My room is 12 x 21 x 9, not too bright or dark, with bass traps, absorption behind and to the side of the speakers and GIK diffusion/absorption panels on the back wall and on my ceiling.
.
(very good) NRC measurements of the new passive LS50 Meta
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...ef-ls50-meta-loudspeakers&catid=77&Itemid=153
KEF seems to have successfully corrected the FR problems of the first passive one
https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/i...&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153
rest looks as excepted very similar, "unfortunately" already the distortion measurements of the old tweeter were beyond the plot scale so we cant see the differences of the new one with the META absorption material, also as per NRC standard unfortunately no decay spectrum measurements.
I am not technically educated, but isn´t this noticeable higher distortion that the one from Neumann´s Kh-120? May be the difference is due to this second chart not including noise, just THD?
Here are those measurements with proper scaling, using the scientifically-determined best spinorama color-scheme:
LS50 Meta:
View attachment 84343
LS50 Wireless 2:
View attachment 84344
For reference, here's how the listening window and ER, the two most important curves, imo, compare to Amir's spin for the Genelec 8341:
So very much comparable. Eagle-eyed observes will note the Genelec appears to have ever so slightly better directivity while the LS50W II has an ever so slightly smoother listening window. Probably at the point of being negligible considering the different measurement sources. Though I'm curious how the small woofer will handle higher SPLs, it seems the LS50W will sound excellent in its comfortable range.
EDIT: Also note that the LS50 Meta and Wireless II have absolutely identical DI curves, so getting the passive version to sound like the active one should be a matter of basic EQ. Basically just needs a 1-2dB lift between 2k and 4k and a slight pulling down around the mids.
Here's how the two on-axis graphs compare and the difference between them(offset by 60 dB for display purposes):
So the difference is quite subtle overall, though of course the LS50W II has some built in extra EQ via the app.
Funny, when I measure my cheapo Dyn Emit 10s, they have that same ugly hump in the presence region. Creating that fake "window into the recording" as so many like to claim.
That said, I'm infinitely interested in the LS50W....or any of the latest crop of powered, DSP-tweaked monitors that can produce 40Hz at -3dB with a 5 in. woofer, if the distortion is managed as well. As it stands, it appears that the Genelec 8030 still outperforms these, at a similar price.
The marketing nonsense with unobtanium materials is truly a turn off however. I wish they didn't have to resort to such practices. Just say you stuffed the box with different/more polyester or something.....poly isn't naturally occurring.... Sorry, ugly marketing makes me grouchy. I'll still buy 'em if they measure well, and I won't return them if they sound good.
Hmm, good point(s) on it being non-DSP!
I think the whole metamaterial and then naming it such really irked me enough to nitpick! If you consider that metamaterial is just a term fairly synonymous with "synthetic" from what I can discern.
Edit: Would still love to see the LS50W measured here
Edit 2: I dig the watermark! Amir should consider doing that to his graphs!