Mystic Mac
cauliflower ears not golden ears....
Hi all,
anyone heard the new LS50 Meta yet, and been able to compare it the non-meta version ?
anyone heard the new LS50 Meta yet, and been able to compare it the non-meta version ?
KEF LS50 Meta
- Thread starter Mystic Mac
- Start date
manicatel
pfm Member
Yes, it’s a definite step up. I was never fully convinced with the mk 1, it never seemed to quite open up enough for my taste. They do need a very good amp.
The Meta is a serious step forwards. It’s a couple of hundred quid more, so it’s competing against some bigger players than the mk1 did.
I don’t know how much of the improvement is genuinely down to the new meta tech, which as I understand it is a Kind of labyrinth which dissipates the energy/ waves from the rear of the cone?
Anyway, I was impressed by the new meta. The active version is also better than the previous version, as the control app is better thought out than the 2 apps the previous version seemed to need. Worth an audition if you’re in the market for a standmount speaker at the £1k mark, or £2250 for the active version.
The Meta is a serious step forwards. It’s a couple of hundred quid more, so it’s competing against some bigger players than the mk1 did.
I don’t know how much of the improvement is genuinely down to the new meta tech, which as I understand it is a Kind of labyrinth which dissipates the energy/ waves from the rear of the cone?
Anyway, I was impressed by the new meta. The active version is also better than the previous version, as the control app is better thought out than the 2 apps the previous version seemed to need. Worth an audition if you’re in the market for a standmount speaker at the £1k mark, or £2250 for the active version.
Mystic Mac
cauliflower ears not golden ears....
Interesting!!
Thanks for the input
I’m at a bit of a crossroads. I have the original LS50 and DB1 Gold. Both have their strengths etc, but if the Meta is a good step up, I might be best served going the whole hog and getting the wireless version.
I might try for a home demo if I can source one.
Strictly Stereo
Trade: Strictly Stereo
I have them if you would like to try them.
S-Man
StrivingON
I got to play with a pair for a couple of hours.
Used in a high pass configuration with stereo bass extenders (analogue precursor to KC62).
IMO they are hugely better than the original LS50. The exaggerated upper midrange is gone.
As stated above (by manicatel) they are very revealing/demanding of the power amplifier. When used with a KT88 PP amp they sounded bright and super-detailed but rather fatiguing - something of a mismatch, perhaps due to the challenging impedance profile.
With a very low distortion mosfet amp they sounded much more controlled and even handed, but somewhat bland.
When used with my Leach amp they still had the control but sounded a lot more lively. The most striking thing to me is the superb resolution of fine harmonic detail e.g to brass instruments and vocals, this can only be achiieved with an ultra-low colouration design. The bass had the best pitch definition I think I've ever heard from any system. My only concern was a mild lack of body and gravitas to the sound, although I have a feeling that this could be resolved with a few more hours clocked up, or with careful system matching.
Very promising indeed!
Used in a high pass configuration with stereo bass extenders (analogue precursor to KC62).
IMO they are hugely better than the original LS50. The exaggerated upper midrange is gone.
As stated above (by manicatel) they are very revealing/demanding of the power amplifier. When used with a KT88 PP amp they sounded bright and super-detailed but rather fatiguing - something of a mismatch, perhaps due to the challenging impedance profile.
With a very low distortion mosfet amp they sounded much more controlled and even handed, but somewhat bland.
When used with my Leach amp they still had the control but sounded a lot more lively. The most striking thing to me is the superb resolution of fine harmonic detail e.g to brass instruments and vocals, this can only be achiieved with an ultra-low colouration design. The bass had the best pitch definition I think I've ever heard from any system. My only concern was a mild lack of body and gravitas to the sound, although I have a feeling that this could be resolved with a few more hours clocked up, or with careful system matching.
Very promising indeed!
I use the Wireless II so the following may or may not be of interest;
I have listened to both before deciding. The reason I went to with the two are a/it was the latest version with a couple more features b/ it was not much more expensive at the time (huge discounts now on the MkI).
To be honest, the differences in sound are not night and day, not even large. They are to all intent and purposes still far more the same speaker than different.
I would expect the same or similar with the passive version. If you own the Mk1 I would not think there to be enough differences to make it worth spending 4 or 500 quid more on top of selling yours other than if you can get a nice discount.
Reviewers like grand statements for obvious reasons but why not try them next to yours as offered by Strictly? It's the only way to find out.
Subjectively, I think they are fantastic, especially but not exclusively with spoken word. Perhaps not surprisingly.
I have listened to both before deciding. The reason I went to with the two are a/it was the latest version with a couple more features b/ it was not much more expensive at the time (huge discounts now on the MkI).
To be honest, the differences in sound are not night and day, not even large. They are to all intent and purposes still far more the same speaker than different.
I would expect the same or similar with the passive version. If you own the Mk1 I would not think there to be enough differences to make it worth spending 4 or 500 quid more on top of selling yours other than if you can get a nice discount.
Reviewers like grand statements for obvious reasons but why not try them next to yours as offered by Strictly? It's the only way to find out.
Subjectively, I think they are fantastic, especially but not exclusively with spoken word. Perhaps not surprisingly.
S-Man
StrivingON
KEF voiced the Mk1 wireless differently to the passive. So I think you are right that the differences between the active ones are more subtle.
I have owned the LS50 and although it has some real strengths, it's just too shouty to be a keeper for me. The Meta is a different kettle of fish.
Elephantears
Trunkated Aesthete
I agree with S-Man about the superior resolution of fine harmonic detail. For me, there was a huge improvement over the original LS50 in some areas. They really get the reach and extension of brass instruments, particularly jazz trumpet. Piano already sounded very good on the LS50s, but the first time I listened to Maria Jaoa Pires playing a Beethoven Concerto on the Meta I was wowed - really wonderful drama and delicacy.
Unfortunately I really heard limits on some voices, particularly male: richness and body were compromised. I don't remember hearing this on the original LS50 but I'd need to properly compare.
Unfortunately I really heard limits on some voices, particularly male: richness and body were compromised. I don't remember hearing this on the original LS50 but I'd need to properly compare.
I bought a pair of the Meta direct from Kef during lockdown, mostly because it was one of the few speakers new that was available or I would probably like without hearing. I'd agree with what' been already said. Brass is very good, vocals a bit hit and miss for me. I still can't decide if I love the Kefs, I don't dislike them just not sure I love em. Also I'm finding it difficult with their aesthetics, being used to more traditional speakers.
Source and amplification is critical and they do like current more than watts and are very good at showing up what's playing. I also think they want a medium size room with a good metre behind them, I have to use the part foam bungs they come with as there is too much bass in my room.
I did hear the originals but it was so long back to compare with any certainty.
There is a comparison review between old and meta in the latest edition Hi Fi news if anyone is interested.
I also took a punt on their dedicated stands, a bit pricey @ £400
Source and amplification is critical and they do like current more than watts and are very good at showing up what's playing. I also think they want a medium size room with a good metre behind them, I have to use the part foam bungs they come with as there is too much bass in my room.
I did hear the originals but it was so long back to compare with any certainty.
There is a comparison review between old and meta in the latest edition Hi Fi news if anyone is interested.
I also took a punt on their dedicated stands, a bit pricey @ £400
Goat
pfm Member
Been listening to the Meta recently.
I didn’t like the old LS50, at least with the amp I had at the time (although did like the R100 that Kef did). Upper midrange glare, somewhat metallic sounding and loose, indistinct bass. Just too bright and clinical.
A more powerful amp has definitely helped with the Meta, as the bass is good now; decently tight and fast (although still not compared to a sealed box) and well-integrated. Goes pretty low for the size of speaker too.
In terms of the midrange and treble – both these are superb, with caveats. The soundstaging and imaging are very good, instruments and voices sound natural and convincing (although again, compared to an LS3/5a variant, or ATC’s speakers, they fall short). Ambient cues and sparkling details are abundant. Detail levels are very high. Vocals can sometimes sound a bit sharp though, as if laser cut around the edges - they are super clear and present, but at times they dont sound entirely natural (even though generally, they do). They aren’t forward speakers, but the higher frequencies are still fairly explicit, which can be nice at times depending on the track, and a bit uncomfortable on other music. This sounds like a contradiction, but they are also quite full and smooth sounding in some ways, with a good sense of bloom.
Timing wise, they are good, but I’d not call them foot-tapping or particularly engaging in that respect.
I reckon they are a really good all rounder, and extremely impressive for the price. I far prefer them to Kef’s R3, and certainly to the previous LS50.
My main problem is having got used to soft dome tweeters and plastic woofers in recent times, so it’s a bit of a culture shock having that (slight) sharpness and uber-cleanliness to the mids and treble.
So jury is still out on them for me.
I didn’t like the old LS50, at least with the amp I had at the time (although did like the R100 that Kef did). Upper midrange glare, somewhat metallic sounding and loose, indistinct bass. Just too bright and clinical.
A more powerful amp has definitely helped with the Meta, as the bass is good now; decently tight and fast (although still not compared to a sealed box) and well-integrated. Goes pretty low for the size of speaker too.
In terms of the midrange and treble – both these are superb, with caveats. The soundstaging and imaging are very good, instruments and voices sound natural and convincing (although again, compared to an LS3/5a variant, or ATC’s speakers, they fall short). Ambient cues and sparkling details are abundant. Detail levels are very high. Vocals can sometimes sound a bit sharp though, as if laser cut around the edges - they are super clear and present, but at times they dont sound entirely natural (even though generally, they do). They aren’t forward speakers, but the higher frequencies are still fairly explicit, which can be nice at times depending on the track, and a bit uncomfortable on other music. This sounds like a contradiction, but they are also quite full and smooth sounding in some ways, with a good sense of bloom.
Timing wise, they are good, but I’d not call them foot-tapping or particularly engaging in that respect.
I reckon they are a really good all rounder, and extremely impressive for the price. I far prefer them to Kef’s R3, and certainly to the previous LS50.
My main problem is having got used to soft dome tweeters and plastic woofers in recent times, so it’s a bit of a culture shock having that (slight) sharpness and uber-cleanliness to the mids and treble.
So jury is still out on them for me.
I get these lovely, rich, full voices on programme/radio/tv. A joy to listen to for long periods with nil fatigue. There is nothing metallic about tone and I came from a Hegel/Quad ribbon system.
I guess it shows why a good active implementation can be as good or better than even a very good passive one.
Personally I would never call the Wireless 2 sharp, more 'juicy' and full but appreciate this will be dependant on other factors in the passive version.
Having said all that there are plenty of adjustments to change tonality or room EQ.
I have my Formation Duo's here, in a box, awaiting stands. This will be interesting.
I guess it shows why a good active implementation can be as good or better than even a very good passive one.
Personally I would never call the Wireless 2 sharp, more 'juicy' and full but appreciate this will be dependant on other factors in the passive version.
Having said all that there are plenty of adjustments to change tonality or room EQ.
I have my Formation Duo's here, in a box, awaiting stands. This will be interesting.