KEF LS50 disappointment :(

[Frank Harvey]

...the only proper way is to upgrade to Kef Blade as I don´t think R and Reference Series are comparable.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the LS50 is better than Reference...

 

[davedotco]

...the only proper way is to upgrade to Kef Blade as I don´t think R and Reference Series are comparable.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the LS50 is better than Reference...

I don't think he did, they are different speakers designed to do different things.

I think I understand what he is getting at here.

 

[Esra]

Right,I don´t even meant Ls50 is "better" than R300.It is just not the same,not a match...R300 is not LS50 with bass,none of the R and Reference series either,it´s best match "in big" is the Blade and maybe the mini blade i didn´t heard.

 

[Covenanter]

Right,I don´t even meant Ls50 is "better" than R300.It is just not the same,not a match...R300 is not LS50 with bass,none of the R and Reference series either,it´s best match "in big" is the Blade and maybe the mini blade i didn´t heard.

I think the LS50s are "marmite" speakers. I listened to them as my dealer wanted me to hear them. Initially I thought they were brilliant but after more extended listening I found them to be "artificial" and very tiring to listen to. I think they are very, very clever but for me they don't produce a natural sound.

Chris

 

[Freddy58]

As the LS50 had recieved a lot of praise, I was keen to listen to them. I went along to the Bristol branch of Audio T to try them, along with some other speakers. I've mentioned it previously in another thread, that I thought the LS50 sounded 'boxy'. They were being powered by some expensive looking Naim kit. Of course, they may have sounded totally different at home, but based on the demo, I ruled them out.

This is classic and a reason why I feel that the 'buy what you like' philosophy is wrongheaded, particularly when taken to extremes.

I appreciate that measurements can be hugely misleading too and manufacturers specs are mostly useless, but I feel that a decent grounding in the way music is produced and replayed in the home can help give you an anchor point that helps you make choices that are genuinly based on qualitative differences.

Most hi-fi, particularly speakers, are chosen on quantitive differences, more bass, less bass, bright treble, dull treble etc etc, and of course these are factors that are hugely influenced by rooms, positioning and similar factors. In many cases they make little difference as the user adjusts to the changed balance in a process known as running in.

If you can, when auditioning new equipment you need to get past these more of this, less of that kind of judgements and find a way to listen that shows you how well or otherwise the music is being played.

Simple example, I was demoing a better preamp to a customer, so we started off with his preamp in the system and played a piece that had an acoustic guitar intro.

Wow, I was impressed, the notes were so crisp and clear that I was thinking that this would be a great track for me to play on my guitar, it was so easy to follow I was sure I could do that.

I then substituted the 'better' preamp and played it again, really disappointing, for me anyway......! As I realised that I could practice the rest of my life and never be able to play to that level, the difference in the quality of the guitar playing was astonishing, a huge qualitative improvement that was made by the better pre-amp.

Good post Dave

Regarding "qualitative", do we all (mostly) not gravitate towards this anyway? The way we express a lack of quality (as we hear it) is to use quantitive terms isn't it? I suppose though terms like'open' aren't so easy to quantify. I auditioned some M/A GX100's, which were very 'open', and I really liked them, but it was soon apparent that their strength was also their weakness, as they were tiresome (to me) to listen to, almost painful at times. Everyones ears are different, as are our expectations, I would think.

Maybe in truth we all want 'realsim', but our own version of it? I don't know, just sayin'....

 

[Freddy58]

Right,I don´t even meant Ls50 is "better" than R300.It is just not the same,not a match...R300 is not LS50 with bass,none of the R and Reference series either,it´s best match "in big" is the Blade and maybe the mini blade i didn´t heard.

My apologies Esra, I misunderstood you

 

[Esra]

LS50 changed a lot,i don´t think I adapted to them,they changed within 300-400 hours.I can say that,because my other pair, i use a lot more less for surround back in hc, sounds still different if i place them into the exact position the "Mains" are with the same electronics.

Now I experience the same with the R900 as you,finding the bass artifical and to much present pressure on the ear.Bass is absolutely precise and not one note,very tight and ideal for low volume level listening in a big room,but I can say by now it´s mids and highs won´t be the same as LS50.It´s not bad,very enjoyable but not comparable.I also think the R900 (R-series) are better suitable for long listensing sessions than LS50,which are more tiring i would say too as you but because you get more involved and you are just wowed time to time .I found every speaker which i would call accurate in my view more tiring than the others which may be good too but just missed great.

 

[Esra]

No problem Freddy ,everyone has it´s own taste and opinion,nothings there worth to go mad.If you find R300 is the better speaker for you i am perfectly fine with it. *drinks*

 

[shkumar4963]

I guess natural sound is what you would hear if the orchestra was sitting right in front of you. That way you get to hear 3D sound and can place each instrument on the stage. Now as I understand most music is not recorded naturally. Often each instrument is recorded with its own mic and producer mixes it to his liking. 3 effects are inserted electronically.

With that as a background what do we mean by natural sound?

 

[shkumar4963]

Esra. What is your definition for small medium and large room as for as speakers are concerned...

 

[Esra]

very small: up to 10 sqm

small: up to 20 sqm

medium: up to 35 sqm

large: up to 50 sqm

very large: 50sqm +

 

[BigH]

I guess natural sound is what you would hear if the orchestra was sitting right in front of you. That way you get to hear 3D sound and can place each instrument on the stage. Now as I understand most music is not recorded naturally. Often each instrument is recorded with its own mic and producer mixes it to his liking. 3 effects are inserted electronically.

With that as a background what do we mean by natural sound?

Natural sound to me is instruments, lets say acoustic like violins and pianos sounding as they normally do. I heard piano tuners saying about some speakers that piano recordings do not sound anything like they should. So natural is neutral, not adding its own flavour or colour which some brands do.

 

[BigH]

very small: up to 10 sqm

small: up to 20 sqm

medium: up to 35 sqm

large: up to 50 sqm

very large: 50sqm +

Your sizes look a bit large, medium is 5m x 7m, in UK that is large or very large.

 

[CnoEvil]

I thought the LS50 sounded 'boxy'. They were being powered by some expensive looking Naim kit.

That may have been the problem (imo).

 

[Esra]

Yes you are right,but 35 to 50 i meant to be large too.In some US areas I think that would be small and in japan maybe a palace.

 

[BigH]

Yes you are right,but 35 to 50 i meant to be large too.In some US areas I think that would be small and in japan maybe a palace.

Yes also their houses are generally differently constructed from ours. Bass will go straight through wooden walls, also timber frame are not the same as concrete and brick. I remember one USA hifi article saying if you live in a wooden house you had better move.

 

[shkumar4963]

Thanks Esra.. I may have found at least part of why I am underwhelmed by my LS50. My room is 17x28 ft with 8-9 ft. ceilings and with a 4 ft opening to a hallway. With your definition, it will be in very large room. Would you say that LS50 with any amplifier is unsuitable for this big a room?

Others, if you experience running LS50 in such a large room, let me know about your experience. What amplifier are you using? Are you using a sub to fill the room? What sub?

 

[shkumar4963]

Here is the frequency response that was measured by Sound and Vision mangazine on Sunfire SDS-12 use CEA-2010 method. Is there anyone here who has used Sunfire SDS-12. How did it work with LS50 or other bookshelf speakers? What was your room size? I have 16x24x8 ft room but I sit 6 ft from LS50 (that are 2 ft from the back wall) with a lot of space in the back.

Frequency response

27 to 108 Hz ±3 dB

Bass output (CEA-2010 standard)

• Ultra-low bass (20-31.5 Hz) average: 88.1 dB

20 Hz 76.5 dB

25 Hz 86.6 dB

31.5 Hz 101.2 dB

• Low bass (40-63 Hz) average: 119.4 dB

40 Hz 117.3 dB (L)

50 Hz 122.4 dB (L)

63 Hz 118.4 dB (L)

 

[shkumar4963]

Should I just dump LS50 (only a few days left) and buy a USD2000 KEF floor stander or R300? Or try a bigger amp, a sub etc.? I kind of like KEF sound.

 

[Esra]

Now things get clearer (thought your room is around 25 sqm?), I think it will be difficult and expensive to get decent results in this room.I would not consider R300 either and switch directly to R700/R900 if funds allow you and you like the Kef sound,except you plan a smaller listening area within this room where you can get close to the speakers .But there is no way the LS50 can fill this room properly,that way you can listen with more people together as supposed to be.

 

[Vladimir]

shkumar is only 6ft away and listens to sound that is much closer to anechoic than those with smaller room. He actually has a nice setup. There is no deep bass because there is less room reinforcement, which is good because there is less boom and room modes. Strategically placing two small active subs would improve things IMO.

 

[Esra]

Yes that is an option,I have told him too.But the subs won´t get cheap and easy to integrate and the "soundpicture" even with subs will remain smaller than with floorstander because of the smaller mid/bass driver.Crossover R900 is 400hz.So he would have to set crossover high (min to 80-90 hz) to get a similar big picture and force ,forcing him to place the subs near the LS50 (gone is strategic positioning) and subs which will keep up with LS50 performance would not come cheap.But adding subs alone would ruin main purpose of LS50 imo.

 

[shkumar4963]

Thanks Esra and Vladimir for excellent suggestions. R700/900 will be out of my price target. Also floor standers may look too big in the sitting section of this big room. In short I have a big room behind my small 18 wide and 10 ft deep sitting area. To be withing my target and ignoring aesthetics I can go to Q line of KEF (upto $2k). Or stay with LS50 and add one sub for another $700. Or two subs for $350 each.

What would you recommend? I am also looking to buy a more powerful amplifier. Marantz PM6005 $800 or NAD C350 used for $200.

 

[Freddy58]

I thought the LS50 sounded 'boxy'. They were being powered by some expensive looking Naim kit.

That may have been the problem (imo).

Hiya Mr Evil *smile*

Would you elaborate? As I said, I compared with other speakers at the time, some Focal Aria 906's and some PMC Twenty.21's as I recall, and the contrast was quite distinct, to my ears. Please understand, I'm not saying the LS50's are bad speakers, because clearly many are happy with them, I can only voice my opinion, FWIW

 

[shkumar4963]

I thought the LS50 sounded 'boxy'. They were being powered by some expensive looking Naim kit.

Tha

t may have been the problem (imo).

Hiya Mr Evil *smile*

Would you elaborate? As I said, I compared with other speakers at the time, some Focal Aria 906's and some PMC Twenty.21's as I recall, and the contrast was quite distinct, to my ears. Please understand, I'm not saying the LS50's are bad speakers, because clearly many are happy with them, I can only voice my opinion, FWIW

I also auditioned PMC Twenty 21. But it was at a different dealer. To me also, they sounded to have more bass and not boomy. CM1 and CM5 at the same dealer sounded to have bass but more boomy - CM1 more than CM5 but both more than PMC. BTW PMC are more than twice as expensive as LS50. The clarity of high mids and at tweeter was not as good in PMC as it was in LS50 in my opinion. By the way, what do you mean by Boxy. Is it same as boomy where you can here the box or the walls.