Anyone going to buy the new KEF Coda wireless system?

[Gel Man]

Coda W

Experience pristine, high-fidelity sound with the KEF Coda W wireless speaker. Featuring a 12th Gen Uni-Q driver and seamless connectivity.

uk.kef.com

 

[manicm]

I'm definitely considering it.

 

[Gel Man]

I'm definitely considering it.

If I weren’t using my Samsung Q990F as a HiFi system I think I might have bought one.

 

[Gel Man]

I'm definitely considering it.

If you sign up on the KEF website you might be able to get 10 per cent off it.

 

[Dave_]

Don't see the point of them when the LSX II LTs are far better spec'd for only £100 more....

 

[Rodolfo]

No. I might have considered them if they were LDAC-equipped.

 

[manicm]

Don't see the point of them when the LSX II LTs are far better spec'd for only £100 more....

The LSX is really only suited for smaller rooms, and this is a widespread experience. The Coda W is a larger speaker, albeit with the same 100w power rating and no wifi streaming. But KEF is pushing its bespoke phono stage and latest Bluetooth aptX Lossless facility. It also retains the HDMI port.

So it's horses for courses, but I maintain the Coda will be better suited for larger rooms.

 

[manicm]

No. I might have considered them if they were LDAC-equipped.

It has aptX Lossless, so the absence of LDAC is no big deal really.

 

[Rodolfo]

It has aptX Lossless, so the absence of LDAC is no big deal really.

It is rather big if your sources have (superior) LDAC CODEC support and not... 😉

 

[Gel Man]

The LSX is really only suited for smaller rooms, and this is a widespread experience. The Coda W is a larger speaker, albeit with the same 100w power rating and no wifi streaming. But KEF is pushing its bespoke phono stage and latest Bluetooth aptX Lossless facility. It also retains the HDMI port.

So it's horses for courses, but I maintain the Coda will be better suited for larger rooms.

This review points to the fact these speakers are for larger rooms too:

KEF Coda W Review: A Modern Classic for the Analogue Soul?

In-depth KEF Coda W review: The perfect all-in-one speaker for vinyl and streaming. We test its detailed Uni-Q sound, phono input, and modern design.

www.ohhifi.com

 

[manicm]

It is rather big if your sources have (superior) LDAC CODEC support and not... 😉

AptxLossless is actually superior, supporting a higher bit rate of over 1mbps. Yes few phones support it , but Sennheiser and others have a small dongle to overcome that.

 

[Dave_]

AptxLossless is actually superior, supporting a higher bit rate of over 1mbps.

I think anyone arguing the supposed superiority of one codec over another probably needs to give their head a wobble.

Yes few phones support it , but Sennheiser and others have a small dongle to overcome that.

Great another piece of pointless kit...

 

[manicm]

I think anyone arguing the supposed superiority of one codec over another probably needs to give their head a wobble.



Great another piece of pointless kit...

🙄🙄

 

[manicm]

This review points to the fact these speakers are for larger rooms too:

KEF Coda W Review: A Modern Classic for the Analogue Soul?

In-depth KEF Coda W review: The perfect all-in-one speaker for vinyl and streaming. We test its detailed Uni-Q sound, phono input, and modern design.

www.ohhifi.com

Important to note these are active speakers too - although only one needs to be plugged in for power, each speaker has its own amplification built-in.

 

[record_spot]

The LSX is really only suited for smaller rooms, and this is a widespread experience. The Coda W is a larger speaker, albeit with the same 100w power rating and no wifi streaming. But KEF is pushing its bespoke phono stage and latest Bluetooth aptX Lossless facility. It also retains the HDMI port.

So it's horses for courses, but I maintain the Coda will be better suited for larger rooms.

An opinion that's peddled too readily and equally accepted likewise without much scrutiny.

I've used small speakers several times over the years, usually in larger lounges. I haven't used the LSX, so no direct experience of those, but previously, the Tannoy DC4 (a passive speaker), some tiny Quad actives and now, the AVI DM5 which are by chance 100w per speaker and are also active. They're also slightly smaller than the LSX speakers too for that matter and my current lounge is pretty spacious and on the larger side.

The DM5s have no problem going loud. Like most actives, they'll reach high volume without distortion. I don't need to turn up the volume controller on the passive switching box far before they're too loud. They're also a better speaker than their larger stablemates, the ADM 9RSS speakers which I also have.

I expect the LSX speakers will be the same in terms of volume and capabilities. The limitation of any small speaker, LSX, DM5s, Tannoy DC4 will be how deep they can go. The DM5s are pretty good, but I still use a subwoofer to fill out the lowest levels and it works very well. The LSX will probably need the same. But in terms of being wanting or "only suited for smaller rooms", I think that's a notion (myth, if you will) we should dispel in no time.

 

[manicm]

An opinion that's peddled too readily and equally accepted likewise without much scrutiny.

I've used small speakers several times over the years, usually in larger lounges. I haven't used the LSX, so no direct experience of those, but previously, the Tannoy DC4 (a passive speaker), some tiny Quad actives and now, the AVI DM5 which are by chance 100w per speaker and are also active. They're also slightly smaller than the LSX speakers too for that matter and my current lounge is pretty spacious and on the larger side.

The DM5s have no problem going loud. Like most actives, they'll reach high volume without distortion. I don't need to turn up the volume controller on the passive switching box far before they're too loud. They're also a better speaker than their larger stablemates, the ADM 9RSS speakers which I also have.

I expect the LSX speakers will be the same in terms of volume and capabilities. The limitation of any small speaker, LSX, DM5s, Tannoy DC4 will be how deep they can go. The DM5s are pretty good, but I still use a subwoofer to fill out the lowest levels and it works very well. The LSX will probably need the same. But in terms of being wanting or "only suited for smaller rooms", I think that's a notion (myth, if you will) we should dispel in no time.

I've read and watched several reviews stating this - they have a smaller midbass driver than the LS50, with less power, as expected at the lower price, so they're not going to sound as big as the, um, bigger speaker. If you have a medium to large room the LS50W will be a better fit.

 

[record_spot]

I've read and watched several reviews stating this - they have a smaller midbass driver than the LS50, with less power, as expected at the lower price, so they're not going to sound as big as the, um, bigger speaker. If you have a medium to large room the LS50W will be a better fit.

Right, so you've never heard them. Neither have I. Then again, I've owned larger and smaller speakers in large rooms, and indeed some smaller rooms too.

The smaller speakers - and bear in mind the LSX is larger than the DC4, DM5 and Quad 9as actives - all worked well in larger rooms. The benefit of smaller speakers is how well they'll image and that's one of their strengths. Especially the likes of Tannoy's dual concentrics which included the DC4 model and their clever cabinet design.

The DM5 is simply astonishing for the money - £700 a decade ago? Utter steal. Do you feel like you're listening to a small speaker? Not a bit of it. Rather like the Neat Iota II's that I heard this summer at Cranage, they deliver more than you'd expect from a small speaker.

But to say that they can't fill a bigger lounge is a nonsense. And I note you've changed your tune slightly from initially saying they can't fill a larger room, to now say they won't be as good as the LS50 Wireless. That's a fundamentally different proposition.

It's also worth pointing out that not everyone sings the 50s praises either, quite a polarising speaker, but I suspect that's much down to lack of experience with actives and the clarity they bring. The 50 is a much larger speaker though, and not everyone wants that, or floorstanders. They can be intrusive and the 50 is a bulky old lump, regardless of finish. Plus, at £2,500 a pair, they're substantially more expensive than the LSXs at £1100, or less for the LT variant.

 

[manicm]

Right, so you've never heard them. Neither have I. Then again, I've owned larger and smaller speakers in large rooms, and indeed some smaller rooms too.

The smaller speakers - and bear in mind the LSX is larger than the DC4, DM5 and Quad 9as actives - all worked well in larger rooms. The benefit of smaller speakers is how well they'll image and that's one of their strengths. Especially the likes of Tannoy's dual concentrics which included the DC4 model and their clever cabinet design.

The DM5 is simply astonishing for the money - £700 a decade ago? Utter steal. Do you feel like you're listening to a small speaker? Not a bit of it. Rather like the Neat Iota II's that I heard this summer at Cranage, they deliver more than you'd expect from a small speaker.

But to say that they can't fill a bigger lounge is a nonsense. And I note you've changed your tune slightly from initially saying they can't fill a larger room, to now say they won't be as good as the LS50 Wireless. That's a fundamentally different proposition.

It's also worth pointing out that not everyone sings the 50s praises either, quite a polarising speaker, but I suspect that's much down to lack of experience with actives and the clarity they bring. The 50 is a much larger speaker though, and not everyone wants that, or floorstanders. They can be intrusive and the 50 is a bulky old lump, regardless of finish. Plus, at £2,500 a pair, they're substantially more expensive than the LSXs at £1100, or less for the LT variant.

Sp we won't both know for certain until we hear them. The LS50 is hardly a 'bulky old lump', let's not get argumentative for the sake of it. The LS50 is no bigger than a B&W 606 S3 or other speakers in its class.

And I did not change my tune neither did I say the LSX is a bad speaker - I've always maintained it's suited to smaller rooms. Do not put words in my mouth that were never there.

 

[record_spot]

Sp we won't both know for certain until we hear them. The LS50 is hardly a 'bulky old lump', let's not get argumentative for the sake of it. The LS50 is no bigger than a B&W 606 S3 or other speakers in its class.

And I did not change my tune neither did I say the LSX is a bad speaker - I've always maintained it's suited to smaller rooms. Do not put words in my mouth that were never there.

I didn't have to - you said what you said. I'm not getting argumentative at all.

You started off with "they're not suited to small rooms" (which is nonsense) then that became they're not as good as the LS50W - which is a different take entirely. And an uninformed one at that. And yes, while the LS50's a big old lump of a speaker, I'll give it design credits where it's due over the unimaginative 606 S3s.

I never said that you referred to the LSX speakers as bad speakers, but your uninformed take on smaller speakers being unable to work well in larger rooms makes for poor advice.

 

[manicm]

I didn't have to - you said what you said. I'm not getting argumentative at all.

You started off with "they're not suited to small rooms" (which is nonsense) then that became they're not as good as the LS50W - which is a different take entirely. And an uninformed one at that. And yes, while the LS50's a big old lump of a speaker, I'll give it design credits where it's due over the unimaginative 606 S3s.

I never said that you referred to the LSX speakers as bad speakers, but your uninformed take on smaller speakers being unable to work well in larger rooms makes for poor advice.

I did not 'say what I said', or what you think I did. Let's just leave it at this, as I will not respond anymore. as you cannot even quote me correctly. Let's leave it at this. Good night.

 

[record_spot]

I did not 'say what I said', or what you think I did. Let's just leave it at this, as I will not respond anymore. as you cannot even quote me correctly. Let's leave it at this. Good night.

You were accurately quoted throughout: "The LSX is really only suited for smaller rooms" from earlier in the thread. That's been the entire thrust of your opinion on the model.

That doesn't stack up, you've been informed that 100w actives - the AVI DM5 - works well in a larger room, the Tannoy DC4 did likewise some years ago, and the Quad 9as actives did too. There's no reason the LSX II would be any different.

My opinion is based on my in-use experience. Yours from a few YouTube videos. Do the math.

 

[manicm]

You were accurately quoted throughout: "The LSX is really only suited for smaller rooms" from earlier in the thread. That's been the entire thrust of your opinion on the model.

That doesn't stack up, you've been informed that 100w actives - the AVI DM5 - works well in a larger room, the Tannoy DC4 did likewise some years ago, and the Quad 9as actives did too. There's no reason the LSX II would be any different.

My opinion is based on my in-use experience. Yours from a few YouTube videos. Do the math.

Neither of us have heard the speaker. I will not engage with you any further. Good night.