I think I'll step out here, since this thread seems to be circling but I'll repeat one last time, I've heard them, so although time was limited I am not doing or saying anything 'blindly' and nor are those who have auditioned these and purchased them. I could say more, but I would just be repeating earlier posts. I would suggest listening to a pair in the context of a well-sorted system.
I have a friend with a pair, he also has a pair of ML Vantage set up right next to them. The Kefs don't sound unduly bright, but then he does listen to them in a room with 'stuff' in it, he doesn't sit only 1m away from them and he does toe them in.
Surely what we want are speakers that measure well in the setting we listen to them in? Flat FR in an anechoic chamber is nice for designing but who has a room like that?
Surely what we want are speakers that measure well in the setting we listen to them in? Flat FR in an anechoic chamber is nice for designing but who has a room like that?
I have been listening to my LS50s for about 6 months now. I've traded them off with a pair of KEF 201/2s. Slowly the LS50s have won me over. I find that in my new apartment the 3K to 5K peak is not nearly as audible as you would think from the measurements. I think this may be due to the dip beyond 30 degrees that shows up on the SoundStage measurements. I also find that if I put my Behringer Ultra-Curve in line (digital domain only!), I find that (in my setup) -0.5db (or -1.0db, haven't decided which yet) at 4.0KHz is all that is necessary sounds in the best recorded movies to be more neutral, given my positioning - see below. My other components are chosen for natural sound. I also find that the 2KHz peak comes off as a slight hardness that is improved by a sharp but shallow dip on the EQ. The bass peak makes for a slightly euphonic sound.
The 201/2 sounds more neutral from top to bottom, and goes deeper than the LS50. But, the LS50 sounds more transparent to my ear, deeper soundstage, more convincing timbre when I toe them in to cross in front of my listening position, and have them about 15" from the front wall (which does increase the euphonic bass). I've decided to use the LS50 as my main speakers, because I can't play loud in my apartment thus eliminating that weakness, and they are just too wonderful to do without. But that is just my opinion.
The 201/2 sounds more neutral from top to bottom, and goes deeper than the LS50. But, the LS50 sounds more transparent to my ear, deeper soundstage, more convincing timbre when I toe them in to cross in front of my listening position, and have them about 15" from the front wall (which does increase the euphonic bass). I've decided to use the LS50 as my main speakers, because I can't play loud in my apartment thus eliminating that weakness, and they are just too wonderful to do without. But that is just my opinion.
Something to note about the LS50s is that they are not hi-fi speakers.
They're studio monitors.
A forward studio monitor can often produce excellent masters/mixes - when played back on hi-fi speakers.
They're studio monitors.
A forward studio monitor can often produce excellent masters/mixes - when played back on hi-fi speakers.
Really?
This is what a good 5" studio monitor measures like:
RL 906
and here is another popular one:
Georg Neumann GmbH - Professional Monitoring
You'll have to click on 'Acoustic Diagrams' and 'measurements' respectively.
Different monitors for different tasks and users. I agree that Neumann, Genelec, JBL LSR all make nice, ruler flat monitors. Great for some tasks, but sometimes and exaggerated midrange response CAN reveal otherwise masked recording issues.
Even besides that - The 4Pi anechoic measurements also fail to factor in the 2pi loading of a desk - which is very real and I have experienced its gain myself. If Patrick Bateman has these, I wonder if he could show measurements in free space vs half space.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.