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:
#Ls50 meta vs ls50 how to#
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 kommentar(er)
