KEF LS50 disappointment :(

[shkumar4963]

OK seems like the consensus from this group is that for a large room like mine (50 sq. meter), LS50 are not the right fit. R500 is not an option as it is too mig for my wife. So either R300 or LS50 with a sub. And to be honest, all reviews did hint at that, saying "For a small speaker, they have decent bass profile"

Lets hear from this esteemed panel what I should do. Going to R300 will cost me an additional $200 dollars as a return fee on LS50 + additional $300 for upgrade to R300. Would it be better to spend that $500+ on a sub?

Dave, Mark, Vladimir, others: what do you guys think?

 

[koraytugay]

I own LS50 as well and I have been listening to them for a week now. Should I expect them to open up in time, because currently I do not understand all those reviews. They are good at trebeles but not really special on mid or low ranges, I think..

 

[CnoEvil]

I own LS50 as well and I have been listening to them for a week now. Should I expect them to open up in time, because currently I do not understand all those reviews. They are good at trebeles but not really special on mid or low ranges, I think..

You need to give more details eg.

- What is the rest of your system?

- Are they on solid stands that have been filled?

- What size of room are they in?

- Are they on a suspended wooden floor?

 

[Vladimir]

I vote getting floorstanders. Bigger sound, less distortion, wider and more linear frequency range, higher SPL, higher efficiency, same footprint as standmounts and less midbass boom due to better voicing.

 

[shkumar4963]

I vote getting floorstanders. Bigger sound, less distortion, wider and more linear frequency range, higher SPL, higher efficiency, same footprint as standmounts and less midbass boom due to better voicing. 

Yes. I agree. BUT

R500 are $1100 more then LS50

Too imposing (even with the same foot print) in a small living area (18 by 10) in a large living + kitchen room. At least that is what my wife insists on and Happy Wife is Happy Life

But if one has the space and the extra $1100, R500 probably is better way to go.
The best I can do is to get a R300 in place of LS50 for an additional cost of $500 or get a sub for that money.

 

[Native_bon]

How do you think the market of HIFI will profit without proper promotion.. Makes me laugh when people believe everything they read. Well come to think of it, it should not, cause even so called experts fall for it as well.

 

[Reijer]

I vote getting floorstanders. Bigger sound, less distortion, wider and more linear frequency range, higher SPL, higher efficiency, same footprint as standmounts and less midbass boom due to better voicing.

Yes. I agree. BUT

R500 are $1100 more then LS50

Too imposing (even with the same foot print) in a small living area (18 by 10) in a large living + kitchen room. At least that is what my wife insists on and Happy Wife is Happy Life

But if one has the space and the extra $1100, R500 probably is better way to go. The best I can do is to get a R300 in place of LS50 for an additional cost of $500 or get a sub for that money.

If money is an issue, give the kef q500 an audition. Maybe thats an option....

 

[Frank Harvey]

I'll try and sum up this very misunderstood speaker. As we know, the Reference range costs between £4,500 and £10,500, and that's the price range it needs to be to offer such performance. What the LS50 represents is what Reference would sound like if it could be made for £800. This makes it a different animal to the R300 (although I'm not sure why people are comparing it to the R300, when it clearly has more in common with the R100s). The 3-way R300s are more efficient, will play louder, and will have a warmer, sweeter presentation that many will be far more used to or comfortable with, and will find more pleasing. Comparing the LS50 to the R100 will more readily show what the LS50 is capable of, as the comparison is far closer in cabinet size, driver count, and driver size. Due to their "Reference" leanings though, their quality can be compared to the R300.

 

[shkumar4963]

OK David. Then may be I should first understand how Reference Line is different than R serries. Could you elaborate?

And what are the characteristics of reference line that are emulated in LS50.

Now, of course, this will not help me make my decision. I have to decide between R300 without a sub and LS50 with a small sub (about $500). While I do understand that neither choice may be perfect, these are the two choices I have.

I do listen nearfield if that is going to help in my decision - about 6 to 8 ft from the speakers. The room is large (17x28 ft.) and my listeing area is on one end (17x10 ft). My back is to the rest of the room that is another 18 ft behind me. The width of the room that I am facing is 17 ft. I hope I am explaining it clearly. It is all 8 ft. high ceiling.

The easiest thing would have been for me to go listen both configurations and then decide. Unfortunately the nearest place to listen to is about 2 hours away and he only has LS50 and not R300. If I decide on R300, he will order them for me. He does have R500 but that may not be a good comparison.

So I am asking for help in this forum.

 

[shkumar4963]

although I'm not sure why people are comparing it to the R300, when it clearly has more in common with the R100s).

Due to their "Reference" leanings though, their quality can be compared to the R300.

Please explain what you meant by the above two statements. They seem to contradict each other.

 

[shkumar4963]

Reviews from other forums. See if you agree. Tell us where you do and where you don't.

With the LS50, I began to understand what the criteria for universal praise was. Evenness. It was remarkably even from top to bottom. Tonality of instruments was spot-on, and that tonality remained all throughout the range. Note that the range was limited and truncated even further when presented with complex materials. Orchestral music? Forget it. It simply gets overwhelmed with the monstrosity of frequencies and mumbles indistinctly. But jazz vocals? TO DIE FOR! This is the ultimate for those who want the tangible vocalist in front of you, singing JUST FOR YOU. Same applies to small bands and chamber music. It is worth every penny. Just count the number of players before you press start.

Kef R300 - These are markedly different sounding from the famous LS50. They do have more bass extension, but it's not controlled. This kind of pungeant bass lends itself a darker character. Mid and treble are still clean and detailed, but get obscured when pushed hard. One thing I have to say though, when listening to opera, ALL of the Kef speakers auditioned so far have excelled at locking onto that voice while the singer is running from mic to mic behind the orchestra that is going nuts. My conclusion is that they are exceptional at focusing and complexity which is a huge plus.

Kef Blade - First impression. Earthly beauty. Contrary to their extreme styling the unadorned sound doesn't overwhelm you. Instead, the naturalness makes you wonder if the sound is really coming out of those sculptures. I now understand that tonality is about faithfulness to the source. What you are reproducing is the recording, not the instruments. In my case, I'm recreating digital recordings that do not capture the live instruments well. This is bloody difficult. The Blade's reproduce faithfully, then. They stay true to the source. Whether that sounds natural to you or not, is entirely up to you. Show me yours and I will show you mine. Funny how the R300 tries to sound bigger with boomy bass. It's like looking at a blowfish expand itself. The Blades can only chuckle at such immaturity.

Summed up my listening to the R300/LS50. I really wanted to like the 300's as i could get close to the LS50 but with bass. Didn't turn out that way. Very nice speaker, and I think I could live with either one. I like the slightly darker character, but things got a little sloppy with more hectic music.

Kef LS50 - I kept going back to see if there is any way possible to use these as I need. It soon became about what THEY need. They needed a smaller room to keep from straining. They needed an awesome amplifier to do them justice. They needed only half of my music collection to play properly. But what about my needs?

 

[antskip]

Kef LS50 - I kept going back to see if there is any way possible to use these as I need. It soon became about what THEY need...They needed an awesome amplifier to do them justice.

What is your amp? Could you just get a better amp to run the LS50's?

 

[Frank Harvey]

OK David. Then may be I should first understand how Reference Line is different than R serries. Could you elaborate?

And what are the characteristics of reference line that are emulated in LS50.

The treble of the LS50 is very smooth. I'm not talking laid back, as that can be perceived as dull, but regardless of how energetic the recording is in the upper frequencies, the treble has a smoothness about it, while still retaining detail, that I'm used to from the Reference range. I also find the bass to be faster and tighter on the LS50s - well, the whole sound really - just tighter, revealing more texture and subtle pitch changes in certain instruments.

Now, of course, this will not help me make my decision. I have to decide between R300 without a sub and LS50 with a small sub (about $500). While I do understand that neither choice may be perfect, these are the two choices I have.

I do listen nearfield if that is going to help in my decision - about 6 to 8 ft from the speakers. The room is large (17x28 ft.) and my listeing area is on one end (17x10 ft). My back is to the rest of the room that is another 18 ft behind me. The width of the room that I am facing is 17 ft. I hope I am explaining it clearly. It is all 8 ft. high ceiling.

If you want to play loud and have bass management on your equipment, I'd look at the LS50/sub route. If not, I'd go with the R300s. If you listen at average/low levels, the LS50/sub route will help bass presence in your large room.

The easiest thing would have been for me to go listen both configurations and then decide. Unfortunately the nearest place to listen to is about 2 hours away and he only has LS50 and not R300. If I decide on R300, he will order them for me. He does have R500 but that may not be a good comparison.

I would highly recommend doing that despite the hassle it might cause. It is all very well taking recommendations on forums, but you are at the mercy of the interpretations and descriptive abilities of those giving advice, and also your interpretation of their descriptions.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Please explain what you meant by the above two statements. They seem to contradict each other.

I just mean that the UniQ of the R100 and LS50 are of the same size, and both models are a two-way design in a similar sized cabinet, so these two models are far closer to each other for a more meaningful comparison that to R300s.

Of course, price wise, the LS50 sits slap bang in the middle of the R100 and R300, so it isn't unreasonable to think that anyone looking at these two R Series models will also consider the LS50s.

When I said they can be compared to R300s, I just meant that because they perform so well for their price point, they can be compared to more expensive speakers, like the R300 for example.

 

[Native_bon]

I'll try and sum up this very misunderstood speaker. As we know, the Reference range costs between £4,500 and £10,500, and that's the price range it needs to be to offer such performance. What the LS50 represents is what Reference would sound like if it could be made for £800. This makes it a different animal to the R300 (although I'm not sure why people are comparing it to the R300, when it clearly has more in common with the R100s). The 3-way R300s are more efficient, will play louder, and will have a warmer, sweeter presentation that many will be far more used to or comfortable with, and will find more pleasing. Comparing the LS50 to the R100 will more readily show what the LS50 is capable of, as the comparison is far closer in cabinet size, driver count, and driver size. Due to their "Reference" leanings though, their quality can be compared to the R300.

You see it time & time again.. Could it be people dnt like this so called "Reference" sound.. Its like politicians. The HIFI world has loose touch with what real people want.

 

[shkumar4963]

Kef LS50 - I kept going back to see if there is any way possible to use these as I need. It soon became about what THEY need...They needed an awesome amplifier to do them justice. 

What is your amp? Could you just get a better amp to run the LS50's?

 

This was a quote from other forum and not my experience.

 

[Frank Harvey]

You see it time & time again.. Could it be people dnt like this so called "Reference" sound..

That does seem to be true - not everyone likes a more neutral, accurate sound.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Kef LS50 - I kept going back to see if there is any way possible to use these as I need. It soon became about what THEY need...They needed an awesome amplifier to do them justice.

They don't necessarily need an "awesome" amp, just something stable with a bit of current behind it. I suppose it might depend more on what you want from them.

 

[Native_bon]

You see it time & time again.. Could it be people dnt like this so called "Reference" sound..

That does seem to be true - not everyone likes a more neutral, accurate sound.

*stop* who said Reference means accutare & neutral. To many it sounds thin & bright. Sound no were near a real instrument.

 

[Vladimir]

IMO 'Reference' applies to a speaker capable of 20Hz-20kHz at -/+1dB, under 1% THD across, while maintaining 115dB SPL at 1m. Otherwise we might as well attach a 'Reference' sticker to a Bose speaker.

 

[Native_bon]

posted twice. This website is pants. But sorry.

 

[shkumar4963]

Reviews from other forums. See if you agree. Tell us where you do and where you don't.

With the LS50, I began to understand what the criteria for universal praise was. Evenness. It was remarkably even from top to bottom. Tonality of instruments was spot-on, and that tonality remained

These are not my reviews.

BUT copied from reviewes from other forums by different people...

 

[shkumar4963]

I am beginning to see the difference between different speakers. For example for B&W speakers:

685s have more bass but sound boomy. Seems like speaker box also sings.

CM5 have a bit less bass but the bass they do have is not boomy. It is more tight and sounds cleaner. It does not have box coloration, though the bass is less. So some people prefer warm sound of a bit boomy bass while others will live with less bass but want it to be clean.

Now it is fair to say that most instruments like guitar, sealed drums, Indian Tabla and Dholak, violin etc.have a bit boom to them because their sounds include their chamber resonances. So the idea is not to remove all boom. But I felt that 685 and to some degree CM1 were introducing additional boom to the sound specially at mid and lower bass frequencies. Ths was juts my feeling...

I also listened to PMC Twenty 21. They also had much less of this box boom. The bass amount here was similar to 685 but with less box boom. I am beginning to feel that Reference speakers try to remove all box boom without loosing the amount of bass and that costs money. This may have something to do with making the speaker box inert and inside of the speaker dead so that no boom from inside the box leaks out. Of course some people may like that sweetness of that little boom that makes the sound pleasing and a bit rounder. It is like changing the chamber dimensions in guitar or violin.

I am imagining that KEF series speakers R300 vs. LS50 may have a similar relation. When I heard R300 (in less than ideal situation), I did find it to have a lot more bass but with a bit of box boom and a bit of nasal mids - a bit tinny sound. LS50 had much less bass and that is why they may sound thin to some people but whatever bass they did have did not have much of box boom.

David, let me know if I am getting what you are saying corrrectly.

David's suggestion to add a sub may solve the bass amount problem, at least in near field listening situation. I will audition that in a week or so and let you know. Unfortunately I don't have any possibilty of listening to R300 again.

 

[shkumar4963]

I am beginning to see the difference between different speakers. For example for B&W speakers:

685s have more bass but sound boomy. Seems like speaker box also sings.

CM5 have a bit less bass but the bass they do have is not boomy. It is more tight and sounds cleaner. It does not have box coloration, though the bass is less. So some people prefer warm sound of a bit boomy bass while others will live with less bass but want it to be clean.

Now it is fair to say that most instruments like guitar, sealed drums, Indian Tabla and Dholak, violin etc.have a bit boom to them because their sounds include their chamber resonances. So the idea is not to remove all boom. But I felt that 685 and to some degree CM1 were introducing additional boom to the sound specially at mid and lower bass frequencies. Ths was juts my feeling...

I also listened to PMC Twenty 21. They also had much less of this box boom. The bass amount here was similar to 685 but with less box boom. I am beginning to feel that Reference speakers try to remove all box boom without loosing the amount of bass and that costs money. This may have something to do with making the speaker box inert and inside of the speaker dead so that no boom from inside the box leaks out. Of course some people may like that sweetness of that little boom that makes the sound pleasing and a bit rounder. It is like changing the chamber dimensions in guitar or violin.

I am imagining that KEF series speakers R300 vs. LS50 may have a similar relation. When I heard R300 (in less than ideal situation), I did find it to have a lot more bass but with a bit of box boom and a bit of nasal mids - a bit tinny sound. LS50 had much less bass and that is why they may sound thin to some people but whatever bass they did have did not have much of box boom.

David, let me know if I am getting what you are saying corrrectly.

David's suggestion to add a sub may solve the bass amount problem, at least in near field listening situation. I will audition that in a week or so and let you know. Unfortunately I don't have any possibilty of listening to R300 again.

May be Q series from KEF have even a different sound profile.... I have not heard Q series at all.

 

[Frank Harvey]

*stop* who said Reference means accutare & neutral. To many it sounds thin & bright. Sound no were near a real instrument.

You've just proven my point.

And what exactly sounds bright and thin? And in comparison to what? Your Boston Acoustics?