KEF LS50W review

[Frank Harvey]

What would be a good sub to partner LS50W?

Am considering REL T5i. Any thoughts? Other recommendations? Thanks

As with most KEF speakers, I'd say any clean sounding sub. SVS, KEF's own, the higher B&W ones, etc. I can't comment on the current RELs as I haven't heard any for some time now. I'd just avoid ones that go for all out ultimate depth, as they may not be as good higher up the range, where you'll want them to mate perfectly with the LS50Ws.

 

[MUSICRAFT]

What would be a good sub to partner LS50W?

Other recommendations? Thanks

Hi Pang Yip

If budget allows then JL Audio's Dominion d-108 is also worth a look.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[ChrisIRL]

Not to worry buyers but from Kef website:

Passive LS50 warranty = 5 years

Wireless LS50 warranty = 1 year ( 2 years if purchased in EU.)

Why is this the case? 1 year seems very short, especially for a £2k spend. If anything I thought passives could be abused more, poor amp matching, clipping etc. As it's essentially the same speaker Kef must be wary of the lifespan of the inbuilt electronics?

 

[Vladimir]

Not to worry buyers but from Kef website:

Passive LS50 warranty = 5 years

Wireless LS50 warranty = 1 year ( 2 years if purchased in EU.)

Why is this the case? 1 year seems very short, especially for a £2k spend. If anything I thought passives could be abused more, poor amp matching, clipping etc. As it's essentially the same speaker Kef must be wary of the lifespan of the inbuilt electronics?

JBL gives separate warranty on the speaker drivers and box vs the electronics. Box gets 5 years and electronics 1 or 2. Neumann KH 310A, despite its price tag of £2,630 per pair, gets only 1 year warranty. Extended warranty is purchased separately.

I presume electronics are more likely to fail than drivers in all given scenarios.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Exactly. This has been the case with subwoofers for years - sub drivers get a much longer warranty than the electronics do. And you would normally get a 1-5 year warranty on electronics (depending on price point), whereas speakers usually get 2-10 years (depending on price point).

 

[davidf]

The LS50 Wireless to get a software update to add Spotify Connect and TIDAL in the contro app, making them even more of a 'one box' solution

 

[Andrewjvt]

Exactly. This has been the case with subwoofers for years - sub drivers get a much longer warranty than the electronics do. And you would normally get a 1-5 year warranty on electronics (depending on price point), whereas speakers usually get 2-10 years (depending on price point).

Shameless

 

[davidf]

 

[Andrewjvt]

In the midlands

 

[davidf]

Hopefully some changes ahead

 

[Andrewjvt]

Hopefully some changes ahead

Large monty python foot?

 

[davidf]

That'd be nice

 

[inbox4]

These are very interesting speakers. I'm really keen to hear them but struggling to find the time at the moment.

Is anyone able to give me an idea of how they would compare to my R500/Arcam A39 system? I can't help but think however good they are, I'd miss the scale of the R500s?

 

[nopiano]

These are very interesting speakers. I'm really keen to hear them but struggling to find the time at the moment.

Is anyone able to give me an idea of how they would compare to my R500/Arcam A39 system? I can't help but think however good they are, I'd miss the scale of the R500s?

It's very hard to say because what you especially value in a speaker may differ from my preference. I'm a floorstander user, but have always liked the original LS50. It's about the only speaker under a grand I'd give house room to. The wireless version far exceeded my expectations when I heard them at the Bristol show. Decently set up I'm pretty sure you'd have no reservations about their image scale. I'd suggest they were probably as good as anything I heard, including systems costing many times the price. I wasn't surprised they won a best in show prize.

Take your time and get a decent listen, and/or find a dealer prepared to lend you some, or sell on a returnable basis.

 

[byakuya83]

if the active aspect really makes very little difference and some are talking about convenience despite wanting to add a sub then surely cheaper alternatives are available. for example, two sonos play 1 plus play sub - a far greater range than ls50w alone and half the price. and if you want something even more convenient the audio engine hd6 only requires one power supply, as it's not active, the benefits of which are apparently overstated here.

 

[davidf]

if the active aspect really makes very little difference and some are talking about convenience despite wanting to add a sub then surely cheaper alternatives are available. for example, two sonos play 1 plus play sub - a far greater range than ls50w alone and half the price. and if you want something even more convenient the audio engine hd6 only requires one power supply, as it's not active, the benefits of which are apparently overstated here.

You get what you pay for. The Play 5s would be good, but they wouldn't be competing with the LS50 Wireless.

From my listening - and I've been doing a lot over the last few months - the active aspect adds quite a bit. The passive LS50 was always at the mercy of the accompanying amplifier, and most of the time, recommended combinations were never quite right. The LS50 Wireless sounds bigger and fuller to me, sounding more comparable to at least something like the R300s, which given they're twice the size and three-way is quite something. Clarity and transparency are better with the active versions, sounding more like the average floorstander than a compact standmount speaker. As with the R300s, the bass will never be as deep as a much larger floorstander, but it's surprisingly deep for a standmount speaker. The LS50 Wireless would win out in clarity over R500s, but I think the R500s would win out on bass depth. Not that the LS50 Wireless seems to be lacking for most music.

 

[inbox4]

Is there much to worry about in terms of overdriving them?

Coming from a larger floorstander that I like to play loud, I wonder whether I may ask too much of the small driver in the LS50W. Would the DSP protect them from irresponsible abuse?

 

[davidf]

Is there much to worry about in terms of overdriving them?

Coming from a larger floorstander that I like to play loud, I wonder whether I may ask too much of the small driver in the LS50W. Would the DSP protect them from irresponsible abuse?

Yes, that's one benefit of active DSP based loudspeakers. You could argue that at higher volumes, peaks are being suppressed to protect the speaker, which some would see as a negative, but most of the time you'd be hard pushed to notice. Ideally, I'd say go for a bigger speaker if you want to play really loud. Or at least add a sub, and choose a suitable crossover point via the control app for playing loudly.

 

[inbox4]

The more I hear about these speakers the more appealing they become!

Comments seem universally positive and the majority don't seem to feel the need to add a sub. I would be putting them in a 2.5 x 3.5m room so they shouldn't get lost!

 

[davidf]

The more I hear about these speakers the more appealing they become!

Comments seem universally positive and the majority don't seem to feel the need to add a sub. I would be putting them in a 2.5 x 3.5m room so they shouldn't get lost!

Like the passive LS50, their bass is very well balanced (although I preferred them with the outer bungs in the ports if near a wall), so I can't imagine anyone would be left wanting for bass quantity. Bass depth is obviously a different matter, but for the majority of users and their musical tastes, their depth is more than adequate, and it is only really for some electronics music or church organ that you might want to add a subwoofer. Don't forget there's a lot of control in the app for bass quantity and depth - there are three settings for depth (less/normal/more), which if I recall correctly takes the bass down to 45Hz at -3dB, which is pretty much equivalent to the R500. From my listening so far, they easily compete with the R300s for bass depth.

 

[inbox4]

Thanks for all your input and help David.

In one post you said the R500s would win in bass depth but in another said the LS50w was not missing bass quantity and go down to 45Hz matching the R500s in depth. Are these conflicting statements or am I missing your point?

If the LS50s have extra clarity and detail over the R500s, does this make them more ruthless and less enjoyable with poor recordings?

 

[davidf]

Thanks for all your input and help David.

In one post you said the R500s would win in bass depth but in another said the LS50w was not missing bass quantity and go down to 45Hz matching the R500s in depth. Are these conflicting statements or am I missing your point?

If the LS50s have extra clarity and detail over the R500s, does this make them more ruthless and less enjoyable with poor recordings?

Definitely doesn't make them more ruthless. As they're partnered with what should be their ideal amplification, they don't add in anything that shouldn't be there, which is probably more of a common occurrence than poorly mastered albums.

With regards to R500s, I'm just quoting the specs. From my own listening, I would say they sound more like R300 bass, but I'm going by memory, although I can't see my personal opinion changing when I get the chance to compare. Maybe my room isn't letting them stretch their legs properly? Maybe the last room I heard the R300 and R500 in was adding to the bass quantity? My current room allows more of the speaker to shine through, so maybe hearing R50" here will change my opinion.

 

[inbox4]

David, out of interest, which would be your personal choice of speaker between the LS50w and R500s? (For 2 channel stereo music only)....I think I know you're going to say LS50s...

 

[davidf]

David, out of interest, which would be your personal choice of speaker between the LS50w and R500s? (For 2 channel stereo music only)....I think I know you're going to say LS50s...

Let's get the answer out of the way first, so those who just want to know don't need to know the reasons why...

LS50 Wireless.

But it's not a cut and dry answer. I like both speakers for different reasons. The bass extension of the R500s is lovely for electronic music. They're an amazingly capable floorstander for such small dimensions, and there are floorstanders twice the price that aren't as capable or just don't sound as good.

The LS50 Wireless have the benefitts of active on their side, and they're a great option for those looking for minimalism. Minimalism aside, I've always felt that the (passive) LS50 had a better top end than the R Series, sounding cleaner, more precise, more 'vivid' - the R Series can be a little on the laid back side for me sometimes, depending on the accompanying system. My AV system once consisted of five R300s all round, which sounded great, but I wanted more bite - I then swapped them all out for LS50s which gave me exactly what I wanted, and from a smaller box too. Into the bargain I also got a little more insight into the music as the LS50s were more forthcoming with detail, a little 'edgier' if you like, but never bright or harsh, as their treble was just as clean as Reference, in my opinion. The wireless versions takes that a few steps on, and once you have them well set up, they're more transparent, more open, and like many of KEF's current models, extremely well balanced. Add to that you've got the option of tailoring them to their surroundings (as you may not with many systems), and also to your own personal taste, if you like. I'll have a review coming soon, so you'll be able to read what I think in a bit more depth - got to dash now as I have an appointment - just thought I'd squeeze my answer in before I forget!

 

[inbox4]

Hi David,

Any idea when your review is going to be ready and where are you going to post it?

Also, are you able to explain the crossover in these speakers? Someone told me they should be more accurately described as 'powered' rather than 'active' as they have a passive crossover rather than an active one. KEF describe them as having an 'advanced time correcting DSP crossover' Are you able to explain what this means and the difference between the two (or three?) types?