Sound reflections from the top of the cabinet will be generating an uneven response. ![]() I can do like 3 inches away, that's it.įirst of all, reposition the R2C so it's at the front edge of your cabinet. I wonder if at such short listening differences the LS50 Meta can eek out an advantage, especially since I'm comparing R3 to a speaker where the tweeter and the normal driver are at the same spot.Īlso, page 9 of the R3 manual states the minimum recommended distance of the R3 from the wall is 9 inches. The R3 have better preference score but it's for far field. The LS50 Metas don't go as loud in the bass but I'm already sitting so close. ![]() I bring this up because I sit very close to my speakers currently out of nessesity. Neumann has minimum listening distance recommendations for their speakers and they increase as their speakers get larger. There they even give estimates based on specific models, with larger models needing you to sit further away from the different drivers so the sound is more coherent. For example here is a page by Genelec about sitting too close to their speakers harming sound quality: Referencing to 20 degrees off axis we get:Īnyway you cut it, without even considering the metamaterials enhancements, the LS50 meta is a significantly better speaker.I think listening too close is not good for sound quality. Still, for reference sake, here's the normalized version:Įven if you consider that the speakers are designed to be heard off axis, and that both LS50s are flattest around 20 degrees or so, the LS50 Meta remains significantly better. When you take this into account the old LS50 isn't quite as problematic. Especially as some speakers, including the LS50 both old and new, are designed to heard slightly off-axis. I prefer the un-normalized SPL charts because I do think it's important to consider both the relative off-axis performance and the actual frequency response of the off axis performance. Now in a much more cultured data presentation. In any case doesn't matter too much as the Ls50 meta is quite linear on axis.Īnyway for the sake of consistency, here are the polar maps for both speakers in both normalized and un-normalized form, based on Amir's data: Weird that the meta is normalized, Amir doesn't normally do that. On the other hand, agree on the KC62 vs SB-1000 Pro, have the latter and can't see how KC62 can outdo it with smaller woofer area. KEF R3, the current champion, is three way at 6.5 IIRC.Ī very good reference when comparing speakers based on objective measurements: ![]() A great majority of people will prefer LS50 Meta to LS50 (but I can't remember how to convert the absolute score difference into a statistical measure) ī) The next "step up" in preference scores at this pace would be around the 7.0 mark, which is beyond the current state of the start for passive bookshelf speakers (and especially two-way ones), or at least those that have been measured today. This is significant in two ways:Ī) 1.1 to 1.4 difference in preference score is very significant and audible. That is 4.6 for LS50 and somewhere between 5.7 (Amir's review) and 6.0 (napilopez's review) for the LS50 Meta. Since this is a scientific review site, we should look up the preference scores for both, pre-EQ. Sorry to disagree, but the jump from LS50, an already very good speaker, to the LS50 Meta, a great speaker, is not as small or incremental as you say.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |