New KEF Studio monitors - any good?

[Anonymous]

Passive crossovers can't control the different characteristics of the different drive units either, or most cabinet resonances, and their overall sound is dependant on many other factors too, not least the minimising of distortion, which properly designed actives do better.

Max, I have to applaud you, lecturing John Dawson on loudspeaker design. Well done.

But was my point valid? Because that's all that matters.

 

[Phileas]

Max, I have to applaud you, lecturing John Dawson on loudspeaker design. Well done.

I dont think this is fair. Max was just reading between the lines. It didn't require specialist knowledge.

 

[matthewpiano]

I think Max has rather missed the point. Either that, or picking on the one element of Mr Dawson's post that he thinks he can pick holes in. As I read it, John Dawson is basically saying that it is no good buying a speaker just because it has an active crossover. The other aspects of the design have to be right and, specifically, the drive units and cabinet construction/design have the biggest impact on the overall performance. He wasn't saying that passive crossovers control dispersion characteristics etc. any better than actives.

 

[fr0g]

The moral of this story is that active crossovers are inherently better, but the market, profit and margins will all be affected if the leap to them is made overnight.

So the reason why active isn't dominant is not because of SQ, but because of desire to keep making (more) money.

Which is fair enough.

And of course there are great passive as well as active systems.

But either way...Enjoy the music!

 

[matthewpiano]

But either way...Enjoy the music!

:clap:

 

[Frank Harvey]

The moral of this story is that active crossovers are inherently better, but the market, profit and margins will all be affected if the leap to them is made overnight.

So the reason why active isn't dominant is not because of SQ, but because of desire to keep making (more) money.

Virtually all speaker manufacturers have access to amplification of some sort, as they make subwoofers too - an active product. If speaker manufacturers wanted to produce active speakers, it would actually mean more money for them, as they'll get sales from active and passive. The only manufacturers that will affect will be the electronics only manufacturers. So there's no reason for any speaker manufacturer suddenly desiring to produce active speakers themselves. But they haven't, and the reason they haven't has nothing to do with profits.

Anyway, enough of all this pointless talk (if its not pointless, it belongs in its own thread) as it has nothing to do with the thread title. It'll be good for a few people to come back and answer the thread title once they have heard the speakers in question.

 

[Phileas]

If speaker manufacturers wanted to produce active speakers, it would actually mean more money for them, as they'll get sales from active and passive.

I think you need to read John Dawson's post again.

 

[John Duncan]

Passive crossovers can't control the different characteristics of the different drive units either, or most cabinet resonances, and their overall sound is dependant on many other factors too, not least the minimising of distortion, which properly designed actives do better.

Max, I have to applaud you, lecturing John Dawson on loudspeaker design. Well done.

But was my point valid? Because that's all that matters.

Probably better asking John that one, Max, what with him being a tertiary qualified engineer.

 

[Overdose]

Passive crossovers can't control the different characteristics of the different drive units either, or most cabinet resonances, and their overall sound is dependant on many other factors too, not least the minimising of distortion, which properly designed actives do better.

Max, I have to applaud you, lecturing John Dawson on loudspeaker design. Well done.

..,but is he right though?

 

[John Duncan]

Passive crossovers can't control the different characteristics of the different drive units either, or most cabinet resonances, and their overall sound is dependant on many other factors too, not least the minimising of distortion, which properly designed actives do better.

Max, I have to applaud you, lecturing John Dawson on loudspeaker design. Well done.

..,but is he right though?

His statement is (IMO) correct, as non sequiturs go, yes. But John doesn't make any claims to the contrary. He says that active crossovers don't solve X and Y, but doesn't say that passive crossovers do.

I think john's more interesting points are these; 1) active or passive crossovers are the least of your worries (I may be projecting there, it would be interesting to see some measurements); and 2) actives are the Betamax and HD-DVD of speaker design; we can claim their technical superiority all we like, it isn't going to make people buy them.

 

[Overdose]

I think Max has rather missed the point. Either that, or picking on the one element of Mr Dawson's post that he thinks he can pick holes in. As I read it, John Dawson is basically saying that it is no good buying a speaker just because it has an active crossover. The other aspects of the design have to be right and, specifically, the drive units and cabinet construction/design have the biggest impact on the overall performance. He wasn't saying that passive crossovers control dispersion characteristics etc. any better than actives.

Exactly right, but this applies to all speaker types and when all other aspects of speaker design are equal, the active speaker stands as superior in terms of less outright distortion over its passive counterpart. This is ooh..s argument/standpoint and not, that any active is better than any passive speaker period. All this does is highlight the potential of the active design and not guarantee any superiority of it over passive.

As speaker purchases all come down to personal choice, a lot of which does not neccessarily have anything to do with ultimate sound quality, it is all largely moot except in the context of this discussion.

 

[Overdose]

Passive crossovers can't control the different characteristics of the different drive units either, or most cabinet resonances, and their overall sound is dependant on many other factors too, not least the minimising of distortion, which properly designed actives do better.

Max, I have to applaud you, lecturing John Dawson on loudspeaker design. Well done.

..,but is he right though?

His statement is (IMO) correct, as non sequiturs go, yes. But John doesn't make any claims to the contrary. He says that active crossovers don't solve X and Y, but doesn't say that passive crossovers do.

I think john's more interesting points are these; 1) active or passive crossovers are the least of your worries (I may be projecting there, it would be interesting to see some measurements); and 2) actives are the Betamax and HD-DVD of speaker design; we can claim their technical superiority all we like, it isn't going to make people buy them.

Very true.

 

[the record spot]

So I suppose the short answer to similar questions is "yes" and, also, some folk realising that what is technically better and audibly preferable for some doesn't make the latter so for everyone. It'd be handy if that group recognised this and accepted it in preference to some of the comments that've been posted here and elsewhere.

Not every active is better than is better than every passive and it's horses for courses anyway. Some actives are destined for the producer's studio, some will work better in the home; there are no absolutes with any of this when it comes to preference.

 

[Overdose]

So I suppose the short answer to similar questions is "yes" and, also, some folk realising that what is technically better and audibly preferable for some doesn't make the latter so for everyone. It'd be handy if that group recognised this and accepted it in preference to some of the comments that've been posted here and elsewhere.

Not every active is better than is better than every passive and it's horses for courses anyway. Some actives are destined for the producer's studio, some will work better in the home; there are no absolutes with any of this when it comes to preference.

Quite.

(I seem to have come over all agreeable for some reason.:? )

 

[v1c]

I would just like to know what the new Kef's sound like so when someone has heard them please comment...... the active/passive comments are not helping IMO.

 

[Overdose]

I would just like to know what the new Kef's sound like so when someone has heard them please comment...... the active/passive comments are not helping IMO.

Did you miss post number 2?

 

[Bodfish]

I would just like to know what the new Kef's sound like so when someone has heard them please comment...... the active/passive comments are not helping IMO.

But that would mean staying on topic!

😉

 

[the record spot]

I would just like to know what the new Kef's sound like so when someone has heard them please comment...... the active/passive comments are not helping IMO.

That's not a bad question; I suppose one of the first things that I'd like to know about this speaker is how they can back up the following claim (as this has some bearing on the underlying sound - from this I'd suggest they're talking about a neutral speaker and the studio siting in the KEF site suggests it may have a Marmite kind of appeal as a result):-

"LS50’s unique technology offers by far the cleanest, most accurate studio-grade performance of any mini monitor."

 

[v1c]

I would just like to know what the new Kef's sound like so when someone has heard them please comment...... the active/passive comments are not helping IMO.

Did you miss post number 2?

No i saw it , be nice to have some more relevant though.

 

[fr0g]

The moral of this story is that active crossovers are inherently better, but the market, profit and margins will all be affected if the leap to them is made overnight.

So the reason why active isn't dominant is not because of SQ, but because of desire to keep making (more) money.

Virtually all speaker manufacturers have access to amplification of some sort, as they make subwoofers too - an active product. If speaker manufacturers wanted to produce active speakers, it would actually mean more money for them

O RLY?

Sorry, it needed that. Either way. I doubt it. If the Hi-fi stores stocked Brand A's speakers in passive and active, assuming they were well implemented, it wouldn't matter which amp they tried with the passive, as the active would be better, and probably cheaper. So less sales. Not to mention the diminished likelihood of upgraditis further down the line.

Personally, and from experience I think it's the high street Hi-fi stores holding progress (into actives) back as their (your) meat and veg is upgrades and fancy wires that look good, margin well but add '→0'

 

[Frank Harvey]

I suppose one of the first things that I'd like to know about this speaker is how they can back up the following claim (as this has some bearing on the underlying sound - from this I'd suggest they're talking about a neutral speaker and the studio siting in the KEF site suggests it may have a Marmite kind of appeal as a result):-

"LS50’s unique technology offers by far the cleanest, most accurate studio-grade performance of any mini monitor."

Well let's face it, every manufacturer claims that their speakers are the best, so some of it is meant to be taken with a pinch of salt. You'll never see a manufacturer state, "Our new loudspeakers are the result of 5 years of research, and they're really quite good, maybe not up with the best, but they're decent for the money. They lack a little in the midrange, but other areas will take your mind off that". 🙂

I'm sure the statement isn't a complete fabrication, as that would just be suicide for a product once it is released, especially in this day and age with forums. Although I dare say that that statement can be misread or read different ways by some people.

Anyway, I'll be hearing them in about 15 hours, so I'll post up what I think. Some may not be interested in that as they'll feel that there's an agenda there, but I'll just be posting up what I think as a member of the forum. If WHF want me to post stuff as "me", I'll happily join up and post as an individual.

 

[matthewpiano]

I would just like to know what the new Kef's sound like so when someone has heard them please comment...... the active/passive comments are not helping IMO.

Did you miss post number 2?

No i saw it , be nice to have some more relevant though.

Actually I agree. Too often at the moment threads are ending up turning into debates about distortion or active vs passive or similar, and not really getting to the heart of the original post/question.

I personally think its time to cool all the posturing and focus on keeping things on-topic a bit more. That way we might actually be able to help each other instead of going round in circles all the time.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Sorry, it needed that. Either way. I doubt it. If the Hi-fi stores stocked Brand A's speakers in passive and active, assuming they were well implemented, it wouldn't matter which amp they tried with the passive, as the active would be better, and probably cheaper. So less sales. Not to mention the diminished likelihood of upgraditis further down the line.

I don't think so. As has been mentioned numerous times, and something which the active brigade can't seem to let sink into their brains, is that not everyone wants an active solution! A lot of people are happy with separates as they can choose what they want, tailor their system, and choose speakers that they like the look of (yes,mthat is important to people nowadays!). There have been many people state that they think active speakers sound bright to them. You may disagree, and no doubt countless others, but you have to take into account people's personal preferences when it comes to looks and sound.

Personally, and from experience I think it's the high street Hi-fi stores holding progress (into actives) back as their (your) meat and veg is upgrades and fancy wires that look good, margin well but add '→0'

Oh right, so it's no longer manufacturers(who don't make actives) holding actives back, it's the retailers. There's always someone to blame isn't there? Do pro places sell any electronics at all? Or is it just a wall of active speakers?

Let me ask you something (as well as all active followers) - are you supporting actives because they're active, or because they're supposedly more accurate?

 

[the record spot]

Well said MP; people can pick and choose as they see fit, not have a solution that fits some thrown at them as the be-all and end-all. It is tiresome and this place doesn't need it.

There's a place for everything in this hobby and everyone has different requirements.

 

[Anonymous]

This is a thread about studio monitors, that are claimed by KEF to be the most accurate on the planet, so it was kind of inevitable that comparisons with active studio monitors would come into it.

And again, i don't see anyone saying all actives are better or actives are the be all and end all, so why do some people keep insisting that others are saying exactly that? When they're not.