sqlsavior
Lunatic Member
Reading your post, I would credit finally getting good sound not to "synergy", but to finally getting a good preamp. I could easily be wrong, but that is my guess.
Speakers Around $1500 / Alternatives to the KEF LS50
- Thread starter racingkaherv
- Start date
Reading your post, I would credit finally getting good sound not to "synergy", but to finally getting a good preamp. I could easily be wrong, but that is my guess.
RGA
Super Member
You compare by listening - and several times to get various biases removed - such as mood based bias, visual appearance, price, etc.
You can't really compare by just looking at the specs or what driver material is being used - although you can build yourself a general correlation over time and have a "generalized" rule of thumb for what is "more likely" to sound better to you.
For me Ribbons can sound really clean and clear but they also tend to lack dynamics and rarely completely sound "in sync" with the woofer being deployed - some lesser ribbons also sound hashy and artificial. Truth be told they're often in my least favorite cam as a driver. That said I heard Roksan's new flagship and it sounded good - but IMO it's far too expensive compared to lesser priced (boring technology) speakers at the same dealer which sound vastly better to me.
The KEFs have a metal tweeter - and you can tell that it does. Whether one likes that or not is up to them. I think it's a better than most speakers using metal tweeters - but plenty of people do hear it - it either bothers you or it doesn't - no one is right or wrong. It can actually serve to improve transients and leading edge behaviour. Conversely some may be bothered that it also enhances sibilant qualities on vocals which can bother people.
It's a fine speaker for the money - but so are a lot of speakers.
You can't really compare by just looking at the specs or what driver material is being used - although you can build yourself a general correlation over time and have a "generalized" rule of thumb for what is "more likely" to sound better to you.
For me Ribbons can sound really clean and clear but they also tend to lack dynamics and rarely completely sound "in sync" with the woofer being deployed - some lesser ribbons also sound hashy and artificial. Truth be told they're often in my least favorite cam as a driver. That said I heard Roksan's new flagship and it sounded good - but IMO it's far too expensive compared to lesser priced (boring technology) speakers at the same dealer which sound vastly better to me.
The KEFs have a metal tweeter - and you can tell that it does. Whether one likes that or not is up to them. I think it's a better than most speakers using metal tweeters - but plenty of people do hear it - it either bothers you or it doesn't - no one is right or wrong. It can actually serve to improve transients and leading edge behaviour. Conversely some may be bothered that it also enhances sibilant qualities on vocals which can bother people.
It's a fine speaker for the money - but so are a lot of speakers.
runnin'
Super Member
What I'm saying, and all I'm saying, is this is a $1500 bookshelf speaker. That's not chump change, at least for most of us, it's a lot of money. Most speaker manufactures(and I'm simply speaking in generalities here, so finding a model that is similar really doesn't prove anything) offer lower bass response and more power handling for the money than the Kef LS50.
I keep saying that I'm sure the LS50 is a fine sounding speaker, and apparently some of you have missed it, so I'll say it again. I'm sure the LS50 is a fine sounding speaker. But you'll need to get a sub if you want to hear ALL of the music tracks you're listening to. It doesn't matter what you feel on this point. You can say, I don't think I'm missing anything with the 79Hz bottom end of the LS50. But you're simply not getting the whole sound if that's all you've got.
I've got a 250 wpc stereo amp for my 2 channel system, and I know that I'd run out of speaker with the LS50 pretty fast in my larger than average room.
So, I'm not attempting to judge the sound, that would be stupid since I haven't heard the speaker. I'm simply saying(again) that for 1500, it wouldn't be on my short list because you're not getting a lot for the money in the above categories. Even the Sierra-1, at $850 goes down to 44Hz and is rated up to 200 watts. It won awards several years ago for it's potent performance/price combo. You don't get that with the Kefs.
And so I get called a "dud" for pointing out some of the weaknesses of the LS50 in a thread entitled, "Alternatives to the Kef LS50". Stay classy, pal.
I keep saying that I'm sure the LS50 is a fine sounding speaker, and apparently some of you have missed it, so I'll say it again. I'm sure the LS50 is a fine sounding speaker. But you'll need to get a sub if you want to hear ALL of the music tracks you're listening to. It doesn't matter what you feel on this point. You can say, I don't think I'm missing anything with the 79Hz bottom end of the LS50. But you're simply not getting the whole sound if that's all you've got.
I've got a 250 wpc stereo amp for my 2 channel system, and I know that I'd run out of speaker with the LS50 pretty fast in my larger than average room.
So, I'm not attempting to judge the sound, that would be stupid since I haven't heard the speaker. I'm simply saying(again) that for 1500, it wouldn't be on my short list because you're not getting a lot for the money in the above categories. Even the Sierra-1, at $850 goes down to 44Hz and is rated up to 200 watts. It won awards several years ago for it's potent performance/price combo. You don't get that with the Kefs.
And so I get called a "dud" for pointing out some of the weaknesses of the LS50 in a thread entitled, "Alternatives to the Kef LS50". Stay classy, pal.
gusgranite
let the words flow
I'm guessing he meant 'dude'?
I ended up going for similar price monitors knowing I was going to have to get a sub later as well. It doesn't bother me even though I listen to a lot of bass heavy music. I wanted what were to my ears the highest quality sound/drivers/build my budget could buy. Now I'm saving up again and researching a nice low distortion sub. Might go the DIY route actually which could be fun.
I know what you're saying. Great speakers but you'll probably need to add a sub down the road as well.
RGA
Super Member
Runnin
Well of course you are correct. Nevertheless we should more or less compare apples to apples and not necessarily price to price although we can do that too.
I am going to use B&W as an example because it's easier - You could buy the big floorstanding CM speakers for around $2200 - this was full range and had 3-4 woofers - or for the same money you could buy the small 705 standmount. Has nowhere near the bass, nowhere near the volume or dynamics - but it has their better tweeter.
The choice you had as a consumer was to take the full range sound with a lesser sounding treble or the better midrange/treble but lose the bass.
Most speaker companies with several lines operate the exact same way. And while the KEF is expensive - when compared to numerous speakers it actually comes out at a lower price with better performance than numerous others. The bass spec that is more important is usable bass which in the UK has always been the -6dB point - the KEF is 47hz -6dB which is FAR FAR closer to the way it actually sounds than the +/-3dB figure. The Kef has quite robust bass for any speaker using a 5 inch driver and it will play surprisingly loud doing it.
For instance the LS-3/5a variants also post 79hz +/-3dB and sounds utterly feeble in the bass in direct comparison. The KEF LS-50 in comparison will blow you into next week - the LS3/5a may as well be the telephone in direct comparison.
Big speakers with more drivers generally provide more bass - but more drivers usually sounds less right in the midrange and not as cohesive top to bottom. You often gain something but you lose something in the process.
I said long ago that I would like to see a $5k version of this speaker using a 8 inch coax with a silk dome (or possibly beryllium if they want the marketing hoopla). An 8 can get the speaker below 30hz and likely will sound less tubby than a 10 or 12. An 8 is far easier (though still difficult) to get a cohesive sound with the tweeter.
The other thing to note about the KEF is that they are small - people want small - If space were no consideration you could buy the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 for less money which was budget leader of the year several years back in Soundstage. http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/cerwinvega_cls215.htm
If space is not an issue the CV is handedly the better speaker in terms of recreating full range visceral experience - and while it sounds a little less refined in the treble - the KEF isn't exactly great here either.
But the things are huge and you kind of have to have a super wife who will look past those pink rubbers.
Well of course you are correct. Nevertheless we should more or less compare apples to apples and not necessarily price to price although we can do that too.
I am going to use B&W as an example because it's easier - You could buy the big floorstanding CM speakers for around $2200 - this was full range and had 3-4 woofers - or for the same money you could buy the small 705 standmount. Has nowhere near the bass, nowhere near the volume or dynamics - but it has their better tweeter.
The choice you had as a consumer was to take the full range sound with a lesser sounding treble or the better midrange/treble but lose the bass.
Most speaker companies with several lines operate the exact same way. And while the KEF is expensive - when compared to numerous speakers it actually comes out at a lower price with better performance than numerous others. The bass spec that is more important is usable bass which in the UK has always been the -6dB point - the KEF is 47hz -6dB which is FAR FAR closer to the way it actually sounds than the +/-3dB figure. The Kef has quite robust bass for any speaker using a 5 inch driver and it will play surprisingly loud doing it.
For instance the LS-3/5a variants also post 79hz +/-3dB and sounds utterly feeble in the bass in direct comparison. The KEF LS-50 in comparison will blow you into next week - the LS3/5a may as well be the telephone in direct comparison.
Big speakers with more drivers generally provide more bass - but more drivers usually sounds less right in the midrange and not as cohesive top to bottom. You often gain something but you lose something in the process.
I said long ago that I would like to see a $5k version of this speaker using a 8 inch coax with a silk dome (or possibly beryllium if they want the marketing hoopla). An 8 can get the speaker below 30hz and likely will sound less tubby than a 10 or 12. An 8 is far easier (though still difficult) to get a cohesive sound with the tweeter.
The other thing to note about the KEF is that they are small - people want small - If space were no consideration you could buy the Cerwin Vega CLS 215 for less money which was budget leader of the year several years back in Soundstage. http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/cerwinvega_cls215.htm
If space is not an issue the CV is handedly the better speaker in terms of recreating full range visceral experience - and while it sounds a little less refined in the treble - the KEF isn't exactly great here either.
But the things are huge and you kind of have to have a super wife who will look past those pink rubbers.
Correct, sorry for the sp. And as much as I still love my LS50s, I do feel in my case, stereo subs are an added asset. Although not necessary for a lot of music.
Last edited:
You have to be really careful when looking at manufacturers specs in judging products. Unless the same person is measuring the same speakers in the same room, you can't trust what you are reading. We've seen time and time again that what the manufacturers are saying are the specs can't be duplicated by others. There is no independent lab measuring all this stuff giving us a common reference and this isn't like measuring 0-60 times for cars where it's pretty straightforward. You can give the same speaker to two different engineers and have them use their equipment and their rooms and you'll get different results based on how they go about it.
As far as total watts, in my opinion that's about as meaningless as you can get. What is the impedance value assumed when a manufacturer states "x" number of watts? What is the distortion level the speaker produces at that wattage? What frequencies are we assuming are being transmitted at that maximum wattage number? Is that simply the number of watts that will be needed to destroy the speaker? We don't know. Each manufacturer uses that spec a little differently. If the Kef can produce 100 watts at less distortion than the Sierra at 100 don't you think that would be important? If the Sierra's spec simply meant that the speakers can't take more than 200 watts without being damaged and Kef uses the spec to say to indicate how much power they can take and still sound as designed, doesn't the spec become meaningless?
If you truly wanted to know how loud a speaker can play, the correct spec would "x decibels at "y" distance in a "z" sized room at "a" amount of distortion.
Things to think about when reading manufacturers specs.
RGA
Super Member
Different makers measure things differently largely depending on the design - Some want to put it in their best light but some measure it the way they're supposed to be set up.
One of my speakers (the AN E) took a bit of a beating by Stereophile in the sensitivity department - but the manufacturer measured BOTH speakers from the corner of the room. They claim 97.5dB sensitivity - Stereophile got 92dB. They kinda said the maker was being optimistic - but Stereophile measures only one speaker in the middle of a room or outside (with no room) to try and create an anechoic condition. Many speakers are measured under anechoic conditions and many speakers are designed for such a thing but not the AN E.
When you add the second speaker you gain 3dB - when you place a speaker in a corner you gain 3db. So that's 6db added to the 92dB gives you 98dB. I don;t know about others but when I buy a pair of stereo speakers I listen to BOTH speakers not one speaker so it seems kind of strange to me why a measurement of one speaker would hold much interest unless all you have is mono recordings I suppose.
Panels often sound more sensitive than they ought to with their rather terrible sensitivity ratings - the dipole effect.
The LS-50 is designed for a small room - in a small room I am often surprised by comments about not having much bass - They should be putting out rather solid solid bass to 50hz and at pretty good drive levels.
One of my speakers (the AN E) took a bit of a beating by Stereophile in the sensitivity department - but the manufacturer measured BOTH speakers from the corner of the room. They claim 97.5dB sensitivity - Stereophile got 92dB. They kinda said the maker was being optimistic - but Stereophile measures only one speaker in the middle of a room or outside (with no room) to try and create an anechoic condition. Many speakers are measured under anechoic conditions and many speakers are designed for such a thing but not the AN E.
When you add the second speaker you gain 3dB - when you place a speaker in a corner you gain 3db. So that's 6db added to the 92dB gives you 98dB. I don;t know about others but when I buy a pair of stereo speakers I listen to BOTH speakers not one speaker so it seems kind of strange to me why a measurement of one speaker would hold much interest unless all you have is mono recordings I suppose.
Panels often sound more sensitive than they ought to with their rather terrible sensitivity ratings - the dipole effect.
The LS-50 is designed for a small room - in a small room I am often surprised by comments about not having much bass - They should be putting out rather solid solid bass to 50hz and at pretty good drive levels.
avanti1960
Well-Known Member
great idea but very difficult to do this because of driver size design limitations.
even the best, most expensive 8" drivers begin breaking up / distorting at their usable high frequency limit well before a tweeter is able to begin their low end duties.
the results are either a gap in the response to avoid distortion in the woofer, tweeter (or both) or a compromise that does allow some distortion.
I have heard examples of each with the worst example being in the "distortion" camp (Tannoy).
KEF is assiduous in reducing distortion in their speakers. The LS50 and R700 are impressive examples of low distortion systems.
http://www.soundstage.com/index.php...ts-kef-r500&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements
http://www.soundstage.com/index.php...ts-kef-r500&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements
runnin'
Super Member
There are some good points being made by different posters but at the end of the day, the LS-50 is indeed designed for a small room. I suspect your 50Hz number may be optimistic, though, that's a long way down from 79.
I'm simply comparing apples to apples here. If you wish, take any speaker and put it in the same room and bass may be enhanced. My Tannoy DC4 with a 4 inch driver has a better +-3db number than the 5 inch Kefs. And if you prefer, the +-6db number is also better. Apples to apples, 79Hz is not that good. 100 watts is limiting for some.
I've got a pair of $6000 Paradigm speakers with a berylium tweeter. They sound amazing to me, and I especially loved the vocal range reproduction, just buttery smooth and rich.
In the same room, using the same system(Halo A21 and P7 with an Oppo 95) I swapped in the Sierra-2, a $1500 speaker. My jaw dropped. Then it hit the floor. I could not believe how well they compared to the Signature S6 speakers. I actually prefer the midrange of the Sierra-2, and I was thinking about selling the Paradigms. But they do have superior bass, and replacing them would be a move sideways at the end of the day. The Sierras are now in my theater while the Paradigms in my 2 channel system.
I just wanted to show the comparison I've made and how good the Sierras match up to very expensive speakers with good electronics. I would not go with the Kefs, others would, and it's all good.
Edit: Johnvb: You say when you called me a "dud" it was a spelling mistake and you meant "dude". I note that as of July 11, you still haven't edited the spelling mistake. This makes your explanation look a little weak.
Last edited:
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
Different strokes, really. I have never liked Ascend speakers. I've listened to their smallest (CBM 170) and the Sierra's and just didn't get the fascination. On the other hand I was a very big fan of Paradigm speakers at one time. I've owned more that 20 different models. Haven't listened to them in a long time so I have no idea how I would feel about them at present. The LS50's aren't perfect but they are supremely well balanced. They get the fundamentals right and never take a wrong step. There is just a hint of sameness in frequency range but that is the only drawback I can think of...still my Harbeth's kill them, as they should.
In the end it's all about preference. Apparently a lot of reviewers really like the KEF's with a large number of them buying their own as their small speaker reference. I get it.
In the end it's all about preference. Apparently a lot of reviewers really like the KEF's with a large number of them buying their own as their small speaker reference. I get it.
runnin'
Super Member
I'm always interested to hear others impressions of Paradigm. I currently own 4 pairs, and the Sigs V2 from about 8 years ago are the newest. On the Kefs I'd say they must have done a lot of things right including a unique look which many comment on.
If you ever have the chance, give the Sierra-2 a listen. They are worlds apart from the lowly CMB 170 and seem to be somewhat of a secret due to a lack of retail marketing as Kef can do.
If you ever have the chance, give the Sierra-2 a listen. They are worlds apart from the lowly CMB 170 and seem to be somewhat of a secret due to a lack of retail marketing as Kef can do.
Last edited:
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
As stated in the earlier post I have heard the original Sierra's and was not moved. But you know how that is. Any of a number of variables could be at play. Ancillary gear, cables, music, mood and so on. It's really difficult to form a definitive opinion about a given piece in audio without a lengthy at home audition.
I am so happy with what I have I won't be looking elsewhere anytime soon. I kind of have a direction or a type of speaker that I have fallen in love with. Harbeth and DeVore Fidelity are examples of what I like. Different sounds and values but music is at their core. I suspect that I would feel the same about Audio Note if I had an opportunity to put those in my home for a lengthy audition...again, it won't happen because I am happy where I am.
I am so happy with what I have I won't be looking elsewhere anytime soon. I kind of have a direction or a type of speaker that I have fallen in love with. Harbeth and DeVore Fidelity are examples of what I like. Different sounds and values but music is at their core. I suspect that I would feel the same about Audio Note if I had an opportunity to put those in my home for a lengthy audition...again, it won't happen because I am happy where I am.
Hi Art,
I appreciate the virtues of my LS50s, but listening almost exclusively to classical music, I just can't get past the way they treat the upper registers of violins. I don't think they sound harsh or strident, but they have a thin, unsubstantial quality that gives them what I can only describe as a mechanical, unnatural sound. I love their superb transparency, though.
My Compact 7s do a much better job at portraying the sounds of unamplified instruments (including the upper violin registers), but they can't quite match the LS50s' transparency. While I listen to the LS50s occasionally, it's always something of a relief when I put the C7s back in my system. (To tell you the truth, in some respects, I prefer my Pioneer SP-BS-22LRs to the LS50s!)
-Bob
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
Can't disagree with some of what you said there, Bob. The LS50's aren't even close to the C7's. Gotta say that I am not a fan of those Pioneers but as I said before, unless I have them in my own system for an extended audition I can't be sure. I very much enjoy the LS50's for all music. I find their weaknesses and strengths to cross genres pretty equally, at least in my system. All of my systems became a bit more natural sounding when I went to Analysis Plus cables and better CD sources...
runnin'
Super Member
In the post preceding yours, he specifically said the violins do not sound harsh or strident. I guess you can color me puzzled as well?
So I guess that means no Hilary Hahn- Bach Partita No. 3 in E Major, BWV 1006: I. Preludio on the LS50's for you huh?
There's a price to pay for that ultra clarity that some speakers portray. You can usually hear the accentuated treble in instruments like violins, piano and even male voices that makes them sound slightly unnatural.
The BS-22's over the LS50's? Say it ain't so! I had the 22's here for about a week and they didn't (and shouldn't have) come close to my CM5's in any way. I actually felt that the BS-22's squawked so your comment surprised me.
I also like the type of presentation that you seem to like. While not as "airy" as the CM5's my LSiM's reproduce violin and piano in a more realistic, natural and non-fatiguing manner yet they are still highly transparent. To me, that's one of the hallmarks of a better speaker even if it means taking that "perceived" clarity down a notch.
runnin'
Super Member
Now the Pioneers I have heard. I had wondered what the fuss was about and got a chance to have a listen. Totally underwhelming with no life. In the same system I next tried a mid level pair of Tannoys, Saturn LCR, their dual concentric design. Absolutely destroyed the Pioneers. If you are finding you prefer them in some regards over the LS50's, then they certainly must have their own weaknesses.
That's one makes this hobby so interesting. One man's favorite is another man's shoulder shrug.
Art K.
The Voodoo You Do!
qft.
