KEF LS60 Wireless

[Sliced Bread]

It just sounds like technophobia to me. If you don't like the app or streamer, you don't need to use them. You find an superior streamer, you can use that instead. My LS50Ws didn't become landfill when they broke out of warrantee.

I'm realising that the audiophile world is markedly pro hi-fi but anti hi-tech almost at an ideological level. I can understand a lot of the reservations but a lot of the opposition and mistrust is unwavering regardless of argument or evidence presented.

I bought the LS50Ws because they were LS50s with authoritative bass from DSP and perfect amplification (better than passives with 90% of amps under £2000 IMO). The built in DAC seemed fine, the streamer a bonus.

I believe technological advancements are positive to HiFi, and reshape the possibilities of cabinet design and domestic spatial constraints. Should be about music reproduction not just traditionalism.

P.S. The Kef control app is ok. I still use it on occasions when I'm not on the sofa (cooking etc). I tried the streamer app and didn't care for it. Sounds counter intuitive, but I literally use a Bluesound Node for streaming with them instead. I literally got Kef to repair them out of warrantee a couple of years ago, no problem.

Sorry but you’re making assumptions. I work in IT and not a technophobe.
The benefits you have of the LS50 wireless all stem from it being an active speaker. In my post I mentioned that I’d be interested if they were simply an active speaker, but I don’t want to pay for a built in digital front end which *will* expire. I also suggested that the streamer should be part of an expansion port or small external box so those that don’t want the streaming section don’t have to pay for it.
I’ve spent the last 20 years in the AV world and I’ve had around 7 receivers…each one with perfectly good amplification, all thrown out because in most cases the digital end was superseded so my opinion is grounded in experience and reality.

 

[justanotherhifiman]

Sorry but you’re making assumptions. I work in IT and not a technophobe.
The benefits you have of the LS50 wireless all stem from it being an active speaker. In my post I mentioned that I’d be interested if they were simply an active speaker, but I don’t want to pay for a built in digital front end which *will* expire. I also suggested that the streamer should be part of an expansion port or small external box so those that don’t want the streaming section don’t have to pay for it.
I’ve spent the last 20 years in the AV world and I’ve had around 7 receivers…each one with perfectly good amplification, all thrown out because in most cases the digital end was superseded so my opinion is grounded in experience and reality.

So here we are, with contrasting experiences (you with decades in AV, me with half a decade with this specific product) drawing contrasting conclusions.

The digital front end you're speaking about is a DAC, a streaming module, a streaming interface app and a remote control app. All of which is additional functionality: it's use is optional, it's entirely bypassable.

Firstly, I do not believe the the these elements comprise a significant amount to the product's retail price.

Secondly, secondary features that are optional in use becoming "superceded" isn't grounds to throw technology in out. That happens because people want the latest and greatest which is a different issue.

You aren't lumbered with extra obsolete boxes: we're talking about two internal circuit boards and two mobile phone apps. In a two decades their inclusion will have no relevance possitive or negative regardless.

I can 100% accept the appeal of a stripped version with minimal functionality. But let's not act like the savings would be significant and this landfill argument is a bit of a red herring IMO.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Even without its streaming section, I don’t see these as any competition for the likes of ATC - you’re virtually talking about old school hi-fi vs lifestyle. But the latter is where the market will go.

I don’t know. In that situation you’re talking two active floorstanders

With regard to the market going to lifestyle it really depends what you want. Life style is nothing new and the majority of people will buy lifestyle as they do now, but you’re talking Sonos etc. At £6,000 you’re firmly in the enthusiasts market space. We already have good lifestyle products approaching that in the form of Devialet, b&o etc. It’s a niche of a niche.

Take the Atom / Nova etc….excellent products even compared to separates, but they’re not for everyone and why? Obsolescence. Many don’t want to drop 4K on a nova then replace it when the steaming section ages. I appreciate too that many do which show in their sales, but it’s not s replacement for separates. It’s just a split in the market. Fair enough, you *can* add an external streamer once a Novas streaming section is either obsolete or supersceded with newer technology, but then you defeat its purpose.

 

[Sliced Bread]

So here we are, with contrasting experiences (you with decades in AV, me with half a decade with this specific product) drawing contrasting conclusions.

The digital front end you're speaking about is a DAC, a streaming module, a streaming interface app and a remote control app. All of which is additional functionality: it's use is optional, it's entirely bypassable.

Firstly, I do not believe the the these elements comprise a significant amount to the product's retail price.

Secondly, secondary features that are optional in use becoming "superceded" isn't grounds to throw technology in out. That happens because people want the latest and greatest which is a different issue.

You aren't lumbered with extra obsolete boxes: we're talking about two internal circuit boards and two mobile phone apps. In a two decades their inclusion will have no relevance possitive or negative regardless.

I can 100% accept the appeal of a stripped version with minimal functionality. But let's not act like the savings would be significant and this landfill argument is a bit of a red herring IMO.

I really wouldn’t call it a red herring. Just search the forum for people looking for upgrade advice on their AV receivers…when you look at the ones they currently have they’re frequently not that old.

I agree that people don’t have to upgrade (unless hit with full on obsolescence), but if you like the hobby enough to spend £6k on a stereo then you’re very likely to.
I could have stuck with Dolby digital, but I didn’t, I could have stuck with DTS-MA, but I didn’t. These are all choices but *for me* separates is a better upgrade path. If I had to replace the speakers too then I would be priced out of the option unless I ran lesser gear.
From a cost perspective neither of us have the information to answer that. Materially it is cheap but that doesn’t mean the mark up isn’t high. Kef are selling as complete system and will price it as such.
But like you said we are clearly coming from different sides of the market and that’s ok. No product is for everyone. If these can outperform ATC scm40a’s then I’ll see them as good value and could then get over having to buy the built in streamer, but otherwise I’ll keep them seperated.

 

[davidf]

I really wouldn’t call it a red herring. Just search the forum for people looking for upgrade advice on their AV receivers…when you look at the ones they currently have they’re frequently not that old.

The AV market has conditioned people to want a new receiver every year (just like TVs), when there’s no real need to, unless there’s some major step forward, like next gen sound formats or being able to accept/pass through a new audio/video standard via HDMI - essential stuff for those with the relevant sources.

These are all choices but *for me* separates is a better upgrade path.

Separates will always be a better upgrade path, but less and less people are going that route and moving over to the likes of wireless speakers and soundbars. No, the LS60 won’t appeal to these people (nor will the LS50), but it will appeal to those with higher quality multi-box systems who want less boxes, but don’t want to drop the quality. I hear of more and more retired music lovers with separates systems who are changing down to much simpler systems. You’d be hard pushed to put together a better separates system for the cost of the LS50 (personal preferences aside), and we’ll have to see if the LS60 represents the same value.

I agree with Justanotherhifiman - the streaming aspect of products like this are relatively cheap in relation to the product itself. It’s the licensing and the ongoing software upkeep that will come at a higher cost.

 

[davidf]

I don’t know. In that situation you’re talking two active floorstanders.

Ok, let’s compare directly, ignoring the network/streaming aspect of the KEFs. They’re both three-way systems, which is about the only similarity I can come up with, other than ATC claim 112dB output, KEF 111dB.

ATC use a large sealed cabinet, KEF use a slimline ported cabinet.

ATC use a 25mm soft dome driven by a 32w Class AB amp, KEF a 19mm aluminium dome driven by a 100w Class AB amp. ATC use a 75mm soft dome mid driven by a 60w Class AB amp, KEF a 100mm aluminium cone mid driven by a 100w Class D amp. ATC use a single 164mm paper based (?) bass driver driven by a 150w Class AB amp, KEF use 4x 135mm aluminium bass drivers driven by a 500w Class amp.

Bass driver area for each ATC is 33.8”, each KEF is 50.28”.

ATC claim a +/-3dB frequency response of 48Hz to 22kHz, KEF 26Hz to 36kHz (depending on EQ setting - I’m guessing that’s using the one that extends bass depth, so the standard one may be around 30Hz).

ATC claim dispersion is +/-80 degrees horizontally, +/-10 degrees vertically - I can’t find those specs for the KEFs at this point, but horizontal and vertical dispersion is identical as the MF unit acts as a waveguide.

Each ATC weighs 36kg, each KEF 31kg.

We could look at driver layout. ATC use a conventional vertical array of HF, MF, LF, whereas KEF, with their UniQ design, place their HF in the centre of their MF, creating a point source with negligible phase issues. The LF drivers are siituated the same as Blades - equidistant above and below the UniQ driver on each side, creating what KEF call an ‘apparent point source’ in relation to the listening position. These bass drivers also perform force cancelling duties too.

Researching and comparing that, I’m actually quite surprised how the KEFs stack up to the ATCs on paper. It’ll be interesting to get the objective thoughts of someone who manages to hear both in the same room. I do still think they’re two different end users though.

Take the Atom / Nova etc….excellent products even compared to separates, but they’re not for everyone and why? Obsolescence. Many don’t want to drop 4K on a nova then replace it when the steaming section ages. I appreciate too that many do which show in their sales, but it’s not s replacement for separates. It’s just a split in the market. Fair enough, you *can* add an external streamer once a Novas streaming section is either obsolete or supersceded with newer technology, but then you defeat its purpose.

I don’t think people don’t buy the likes of one-box systems because of obsolescence specifically, I think it’s more that they want one box for one job, they prefer to have the choice of choosing each section to suit their own preferences. They don’t trust these pretty little lifestyle boxes to come up with the goods they expect or are used to. And with regards to amplification, they’re generally right.

 

[justanotherhifiman]

I really wouldn’t call it a red herring. Just search the forum for people looking for upgrade advice on their AV receivers…when you look at the ones they currently have they’re frequently not that old.

I agree that people don’t have to upgrade (unless hit with full on obsolescence), but if you like the hobby enough to spend £6k on a stereo then you’re very likely to.
I could have stuck with Dolby digital, but I didn’t, I could have stuck with DTS-MA, but I didn’t. These are all choices but *for me* separates is a better upgrade path. If I had to replace the speakers too then I would be priced out of the option unless I ran lesser gear.
From a cost perspective neither of us have the information to answer that. Materially it is cheap but that doesn’t mean the mark up isn’t high. Kef are selling as complete system and will price it as such.
But like you said we are clearly coming from different sides of the market and that’s ok. No product is for everyone. If these can outperform ATC scm40a’s then I’ll see them as good value and could then get over having to buy the built in streamer, but otherwise I’ll keep them seperated.

I said it's a red herring for three reasons:

1) You are conflating two separate issues: upgrade culture and functional obsolescence. They're related by association, but not causality.

Upgrade culture is driven by marketing and social factors like prestige and peer opinion and rarely from operational failure. An excellent product with perfectly working core functionality isn't functionally obsolete if a newer, near identical version with marginal improvements and modified additional functionality comes along.

The desire to upgrade in this instance is social and cultural rather than being based on functional obsolescence. That's not about the product so the notion itself is misleading.

2) The features you're talking about (DAC, Streamer chip, Streamer App and Remote App) are all secondary features in addition to the primary functionality and can be bypassed or ignored as desired. You don't have to throw the active speakers away if you don't like any of these features. You aren't being locked into using any dying tech. There's analogue and digital connection options if you want to use any preferred alternative products besides the amplification. I've never heard of amplification becoming outdated.

3) If we ARE talking about culturally / socially perceived obsolescence or even marketing based obsolescence rather than functional obsolescence (which is a perfectly valid discussion IMO) then guess what: This applies to ALL HiFi products and speakers. Regardless of whether they have added optional features. The fact that it's only addresses as such when there is added optional tech is about perception as much as reality. If anything it's arguable that if all the Hi-Fi products used that can be hidden are out of sight, there would be less visual or physical prompts/ incentive to upgrade them.

Also, it's even less relevant to the AV receivers you're talking about because as I said previously, the hardware change is basically internal circuitry so it has little to no visual signifier in the home. It's not a like for like matter.

HiFi is one of the only industries where people get their underwear in a twist over seeing modern connectivity and added features getting included. Imagine car enthusiasts calling the newest Ferrari a "lifestyle" supercar because it had Bluetooth and a digital cluster. Or commonly saying it's going to become obsolete because it has satnav built in. It's hard to argue that the objection isn't largely just resistance to change...

 

[davidf]

If people were so concerned with software obsolescence, they wouldn’t have mobile phones. And before you say you can get a phone on a contract, the contract is basically a credit agreement buying the phone itself - a contract always works out about the same price as buying just the phone on its own. I have two useless mobile phones and one useless iPad - and yet, I still buy them.

 

[Sliced Bread]

If people were so concerned with software obsolescence, they wouldn’t have mobile phones. And before you say you can get a phone on a contract, the contract is basically a credit agreement buying the phone itself - a contract always works out about the same price as buying just the phone on its own. I have two useless mobile phones and one useless iPad - and yet, I still buy them.

Not comparable. A phone is a single object, while we are comparing combing three objects into one.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Ok, let’s compare directly, ignoring the network/streaming aspect of the KEFs. They’re both three-way systems, which is about the only similarity I can come up with, other than ATC claim 112dB output, KEF 111dB.

ATC use a large sealed cabinet, KEF use a slimline ported cabinet.

ATC use a 25mm soft dome driven by a 32w Class AB amp, KEF a 19mm aluminium dome driven by a 100w Class AB amp. ATC use a 75mm soft dome mid driven by a 60w Class AB amp, KEF a 100mm aluminium cone mid driven by a 100w Class D amp. ATC use a single 164mm paper based (?) bass driver driven by a 150w Class AB amp, KEF use 4x 135mm aluminium bass drivers driven by a 500w Class amp.

Bass driver area for each ATC is 33.8”, each KEF is 50.28”.

ATC claim a +/-3dB frequency response of 48Hz to 22kHz, KEF 26Hz to 36kHz (depending on EQ setting - I’m guessing that’s using the one that extends bass depth, so the standard one may be around 30Hz).

ATC claim dispersion is +/-80 degrees horizontally, +/-10 degrees vertically - I can’t find those specs for the KEFs at this point, but horizontal and vertical dispersion is identical as the MF unit acts as a waveguide.

Each ATC weighs 36kg, each KEF 31kg.

We could look at driver layout. ATC use a conventional vertical array of HF, MF, LF, whereas KEF, with their UniQ design, place their HF in the centre of their MF, creating a point source with negligible phase issues. The LF drivers are siituated the same as Blades - equidistant above and below the UniQ driver on each side, creating what KEF call an ‘apparent point source’ in relation to the listening position. These bass drivers also perform force cancelling duties too.

Researching and comparing that, I’m actually quite surprised how the KEFs stack up to the ATCs on paper. It’ll be interesting to get the objective thoughts of someone who manages to hear both in the same room. I do still think they’re two different end users though.


I don’t think people don’t buy the likes of one-box systems because of obsolescence specifically, I think it’s more that they want one box for one job, they prefer to have the choice of choosing each section to suit their own preferences. They don’t trust these pretty little lifestyle boxes to come up with the goods they expect or are used to. And with regards to amplification, they’re generally right.

I disagree. I certainly consider obsolescence.
I have kept my speakers for over 10 years. Let’s see how many people are keeping their kef wireless after 10 y

Plus with all due respect you are a dealer who sells kef.

With regard to the ATC / Kef comparison I still feel it is valid. Yes the ATC’s are larger but the visual appearance is one of personal taste

 

[Sliced Bread]

The AV market has conditioned people to want a new receiver every year (just like TVs), when there’s no real need to, unless there’s some major step forward, like next gen sound formats or being able to accept/pass through a new audio/video standard via HDMI - essential stuff for those with the relevant sources.


Separates will always be a better upgrade path, but less and less people are going that route and moving over to the likes of wireless speakers and soundbars. No, the LS60 won’t appeal to these people (nor will the LS50), but it will appeal to those with higher quality multi-box systems who want less boxes, but don’t want to drop the quality. I hear of more and more retired music lovers with separates systems who are changing down to much simpler systems. You’d be hard pushed to put together a better separates system for the cost of the LS50 (personal preferences aside), and we’ll have to see if the LS60 represents the same value.

I agree with Justanotherhifiman - the streaming aspect of products like this are relatively cheap in relation to the product itself. It’s the licensing and the ongoing software upkeep that will come at a higher cost.

Yes so like I said…a split in the market.
It is personal choice.
I choose not to put my full investment in a single product.

 

[Sliced Bread]

I said it's a red herring for three reasons:

1) You are conflating two separate issues: upgrade culture and functional obsolescence. They're related by association, but not causality.

Upgrade culture is driven by marketing and social factors like prestige and peer opinion and rarely from operational failure. An excellent product with perfectly working core functionality isn't functionally obsolete if a newer, near identical version with marginal improvements and modified additional functionality comes along.

The desire to upgrade in this instance is social and cultural rather than being based on functional obsolescence. That's not about the product so the notion itself is misleading.

2) The features you're talking about (DAC, Streamer chip, Streamer App and Remote App) are all secondary features in addition to the primary functionality and can be bypassed or ignored as desired. You don't have to throw the active speakers away if you don't like any of these features. You aren't being locked into using any dying tech. There's analogue and digital connection options if you want to use any preferred alternative products besides the amplification. I've never heard of amplification becoming outdated.

3) If we ARE talking about culturally / socially perceived obsolescence or even marketing based obsolescence rather than functional obsolescence (which is a perfectly valid discussion IMO) then guess what: This applies to ALL HiFi products and speakers. Regardless of whether they have added optional features. The fact that it's only addresses as such when there is added optional tech is about perception as much as reality. If anything it's arguable that if all the Hi-Fi products used that can be hidden are out of sight, there would be less visual or physical prompts/ incentive to upgrade them.

Also, it's even less relevant to the AV receivers you're talking about because as I said previously, the hardware change is basically internal circuitry so it has little to no visual signifier in the home. It's not a like for like matter.

HiFi is one of the only industries where people get their underwear in a twist over seeing modern connectivity and added features getting included. Imagine car enthusiasts calling the newest Ferrari a "lifestyle" supercar because it had Bluetooth and a digital cluster. Or commonly saying it's going to become obsolete because it has satnav built in. It's hard to argue that the objection isn't largely just resistance to change...

For point 1: All roads lead to Rome. Either way you need to replace the whole thing when the time comes unless you’re prepared to add extra boxes.
Point 2: yes I mentioned earlier that if they are superior to other active floorstanders in the price bracket then I could overcome the need to buy the streamer twice.
Point 3: Not really true. Good speakers and solid amplification does not go out of date. It is different to digital front end where tech starts to look old quick.

 

[Sliced Bread]

At the end of the day we all have different perspectives and priorities. If this is your bag then go for it.
I wouldn’t.

 

[manicm]

The O word again. In a nutshell if you're concerned about obsolescence, don't buy digital products. My nearly 5 year old HEOS bar could still stream both Spotify and Tidal by 'connect'. My 8 year old TV still does YouTube, Netflix, Prime, but admittedly not Disney+ or Apple TV. It's not 4k either so I'm ripe for an upgrade at some time anyway.

If you know what you want, and will use, then the obsolescence factor is vastly overstated. Of-course if you have seperates then obsolescence becomes less of an issue. But the LS50W2 and LS60 are targeting precisely customers like me - I've had sufficient experience with one-box systems enough to know that they do sound excellent, and I want the convenience. Yes I ultimately had to sell my 11 year old Arcam Solo Mini because it did not have an accessible DAC to connect a modern TV to, but there you go.

 

[justanotherhifiman]

At the end of the day we all have different perspectives and priorities. If this is your bag then go for it.
I wouldn’t.

I just feel like we're into circular logic here.

For point 1: All roads lead to Rome. Either way you need to replace the whole thing when the time comes unless you’re prepared to add extra boxes.
Point 2: yes I mentioned earlier that if they are superior to other active floorstanders in the price bracket then I could overcome the need to buy the streamer twice.
Point 3: Not really true. Good speakers and solid amplification does not go out of date. It is different to digital front end where tech starts to look old quick.

We're into circular logic here.

1) Nobody is stopping anyone from adding preferred gear. I think I've said this three times now. This paradigm you keep coming back to isn't real. If you don't want to add boxes you don't need to. If you do want to add boxes you can. One doesn't stop the other.

They are added extras, built in, out of sight. The cost to the consumer is relatively insignificant. If you're replacing the speakers, it's *not* because of the extra digital features included.

It's a Red Herring.

2) if it helps, think of it like this: Kef are including a relatively inexpensive baseline functionality basically free. Like how iPhones included headphones in the box. Only these are out of sight. No headphone enthusiasts rejected iPhones because they included free headphones in the box. The argument about paying for a streamer twice only sounds rational from a position of predetermined staunch opposition IMO.

3) That's my point! Including additional "digital front end" that's optional to use, and literally out of sight does not make the speakers go out of date. They are excellent speakers, with expertly tailored amplification. This is not impacted by the "digital front end" in any way.

I'm not even remotely questioning tastes and sensibility. Just the notion that Kef's all-in-one approach is more restrictive or prone to obsolescence. Because besides freedom of amplification choice (which is scientifically taliored for optimum performance), it has all the same freedom as passives.

If Kef removed the DAC/ Streamer & apps, i doubt it would reduce the price by more than £300.

 

[justanotherhifiman]

The O word again. In a nutshell if you're concerned about obsolescence, don't buy digital products. My nearly 5 year old HEOS bar could still stream both Spotify and Tidal by 'connect'. My 8 year old TV still does YouTube, Netflix, Prime, but admittedly not Disney+ or Apple TV. It's not 4k either so I'm ripe for an upgrade at some time anyway.

If you know what you want, and will use, then the obsolescence factor is vastly overstated. Of-course if you have seperates then obsolescence becomes less of an issue. But the LS50W2 and LS60 are targeting precisely customers like me - I've had sufficient experience with one-box systems enough to know that they do sound excellent, and I want the convenience. Yes I ultimately had to sell my 11 year old Arcam Solo Mini because it did not have an accessible DAC to connect a modern TV to, but there you go.

I literally use my first gen LS50Ws with a separate DAC/streamer. The obsolescence argument seems like a boogie man forever lurking on the horizon for people uninclined to own the stuff, and non existent for those who own it.

 

[davidf]

Not comparable. A phone is a single object, while we are comparing combing three objects into one.

A phone isn’t just a phone…

 

[davidf]

I literally use my first gen LS50Ws with a separate DAC/streamer. The obsolescence argument seems like a boogie man forever lurking on the horizon for people uninclined to own the stuff, and non existent for those who own it.

In fact, a number of people have used the original LS50 Wireless with offboard streamers like a Bluesound PowerNode from day one and ignored what KEF provided, because they wanted the Bluesound experience and control.

 

[davidf]

I disagree. I certainly consider obsolescence.
I have kept my speakers for over 10 years. Let’s see how many people are keeping their kef wireless after 10 y

Plus with all due respect you are a dealer who sells kef.

With regard to the ATC / Kef comparison I still feel it is valid. Yes the ATC’s are larger but the visual appearance is one of personal taste

I don’t think LS customers are generally the type to swap stuff every year or two.

I still look at these products from the point of view of an end user. If something doesn’t work or doesn’t make sense, I’m not interested - if I feel it presents value to potential customers, I’m in. But of course, sometimes what I see doesn’t present value sometimes does to other people (and vice versa), so I can’t be tied down to just what I think.

 

[Sliced Bread]

Yeah I don’t think we are going to agree on this one guys and we’re going in circles

I think we just need to put this one down to different stroke for different folk. Enjoy your Kef Wireless’

 

[Freddy]

This has been on the cards for a while and now it’s happened.

 

[Combat]

No rivals? What about the Buchardt A700? Pretty similar price and features. Would love to see a head to head comparison!

Yep, my thoughts exactly. Although I assume the A700s are due for an update in the same way Buchardt updated the S400s with a new crossover in the MKII.

In the mean time I'd love to hear the Buchardt S400 MKII paired with the Bluesound Powernode N330 up against these. Given that these cost twice as much as that pairing I would question whether would sound that much better.

 

[BanquoStarbon]

I like the blue one the best.

 

[leemccann1]

I think we need a good super test with speakers like this, for eg the LS60 vs LS50 wirless 2 and 2 KC62 subs, the B&W formation duo, 2 x Linn series 3 and a more traditional amp streamer speaker set up. I own the Ls50 wireless 2's and they are great but im stuck for an upgrade it would be good to see where to go next for the next level

 

[Sfhussain]

Note the review mentions Expert EQ , The latter offers more extensive tweaking including treble trim, phase correction, and the ability to alter the amount of bass extension.

So once again, you did not read, if you interpret that as 'fancy treble and bass knobs', yes it's not full room EQ, but it's more than what you think it is.

I'm pretty sure what twinkletoes meant by EQ is Graphical or Parametric EQ. I'm not sure what you're on there but I own an LS50 Wireless II and yes when you go to "Expert" Settings it is actually a very controlled Bass/Treble adjustment setting (Wall just increases/decreases the lower bass, Table just increases/decreases the lower mids to fix boominess in voices, especially male, and Bass Extension just make the speaker go lower in the bass, I think +-5Hz) , along with Phase (which just focuses the speakers which tightens up the sound but it very subtle) and Crossover for Sub.

So yeah kinda gotta agree with twinkletoes that it is not a "REAL EQ"