I like the air that the LS50s create in the mids and highs around the instruments. This clarity of sound always inspires me. But the bottom end lacks a bit of bite. Here, a good subwoofer offers itself, so you have the best of both speakers.
I’ve been to an audio store and listened to the R3s and I was indeed surprised at how warm they sounded and to me lacked the airiness which I too also like. I want to upgrade soon and the ls50 might be the way with a good sub. I have to look into bass management since I’m not too sure what that is really
To my humble ears, LS50 has better nuance, detail, and more life like tonality. R3 has pleasing warm tonality. I'm sure R3 is a great speaker on its own. But, comared to LS50 here, there is much more cabinet resonance. The cabinet resonance could be a pleasing to ears, but on these demo I like LS50 better.
Listening through my speakers I got a sense of better clarity through the LS50's but better bass response on the R3's. Do you think the LS50's with a sub might make a better over all package?
I like them both. I have the LS50 wireless 2, with 2 Kef Kc62 subwoofers in my semi truck. Sounds really awesome in stereo and for movies. I also put a samsung Q60C QLED TV in my truck with the Q800C sound bar and subwoofer. I have 2 great systems in my truck to listen to when i go on the road.
LS50 have more a more forward sound and crispier vocals while R3 have a better bass extension and sound bigger. I think both are good, R3 might be more of "fun" speaker for a more variety of music and home theater use if you don't plan using a sub. LS50 sound more analytical and might be better if you like vocals and acoustic music. Also according to specs KEF R3s seem easier to drive compared to LS50s so you might get a way using them with a more "budget" amp.
The R3 sounds rolled off and veiled in the highs compared to the LS50. I have heard the LS50's with a good sub, and as others have said that is a great combo. The LS50's have more air and space around instruments with more depth and realism.
Well, that was interesting. Try as I might, I couldn't decide which one I liked better, even though they sounded distinctly different; The LS 50 seems to focus more energy on the upper midrange and sounds very liquid and resolute, while the R3 sounds fuller, more laid back and rolled-off. For long listening session I'd prefer the R3, for critical nearfield listening or mastering, the LS50.
DecoRyder I have the LS50s and the R900s and I think your assessment is quite accurate overall. However, there are some caveats. The better gear you give both, they start sounding more alike. I have a lot of amps and speakers and only my JC1 mono blocks could properly drive the LS50s to their potential. The LS50's are by far the most finicky speakers I own, but when you get things right, they can play waaaay above their price point and kick some serious tight bass for their size. Normally I have my R900s hooked to the mono blocks, but I had to see what the LS50s could do with a better DAC (SMSL D1) and amp. Even a 150 watt high current Parasound amp (and a few others I tried) can't properly drive the LS50s (the bass gets muddy at about half the output of the amp). The combination of 85dB sensitivity and the fact that the LS50s dip down close to 3ohms, makes them difficult to drive. I didn't want to blow the LS50s on my mono block, but I fed them at least 150 watts and they stayed super tight and never sounded stressed like they did at half the power on lesser amps. The more you push the LS50s the treble seems to roll off as the bass increases much more. I have a big room and the LS50 take 10 dB more volume to play at the same level the R900s. Overall I prefer the R900s, but every time I switch back from the LS50s, that little extra sparkle is missed. I am very sensitive to listening fatigue and when I first hooked up my LS50s I couldn't listen for long and wasn't impressed, but after a couple of years of tweaking things (solid sand filled stands are a must and made the biggest improvement), I love the LS50s and they sound very similar to the R series. The LS50s aren't for people who just want to place them on a bookshelf (or anything else that will resonate muddy bass) against the wall and power them with a weak amp and/or bright DAC/front end.
@@gordthor5351 I like the LS50 sound and this is one of the reasons I think if I want to improve my system to LS50 it would be interesting to go to the LS50 Wireless 2 and be sure I am going to get the best of it and blend it also with a Kef KC62 subwoofer with the crossover in order to get the best from both.
@@gordthor5351which speakers are they? Polk 900? Kef? I have the r700 polks and they're marvelous too. I'm using burson Audio monoblocks too for the kef ls50 metas and they're real keepers too.
The male voice in the 2nd track is very deep in R3. I hated how it sounded in LS0. Female voice in the 3rd track is better in LS50. Last track I liked on the LS50 again. If I was auditioning in that room, I would definitely have chosen R3 for feel the music factor. I am buying LS50W II + KC62 soon. Hope this combo will kill the R3.
Yes, R3 has bigger and bold sound but also boxy sounding speaker and this ruin everything. LS50 has better seperation and staging, but sometimes sounds lean and metallic.
Listening again, the R3 has a larger and more immersive presentation, while the LS50s is a smaller and more focused one. I like both for different reasons. I think I'd have to hear both in my room to know which I like more
What would you recommend for surround speakers to pair with R7's and R2C? The Ls50wii or R3? Which ones would sound better for 50/50 music and movies? Thank you!
Which do you think would be better for LCR HT? I am currently battling the decision between the two. Leaning to LS50 META due to crisp sound or voice and nuanced sound effects. Which would you chose?
LS50 somewhere at 1-2khz region is bright than the R3 , which can be catchy at first and then fatiguing later , R3 is broader with good lower end , in end it is your preference both are quick in timing. I create instrumental music and too bright is no good thing and too dark will not excite , it is overall pleasing sound with exciting elements which keeps on hook in music , vocals are something which need mids presence , in 80s and 90s many vocals were supressed as they called it hifi . Pls check the charts on frequency response of both , also if u have preamp and amp separate , u can make the amp sound bright and compressed by keeping it at higher volume and pre amp at low , and other way to be boring and middle will be neutral . It depends on what u want to do. Personally i don't like metallic cones , more of the paper or kevlar are preference for me. Also companies like KEF , Focal , B&W are masters in producing beautiful sound from anything. Focal 906 is what i have heard best which kind of cleverly hides in the environment. I have yet to see a comparison with LS50.
The TV between the speakers is generally killing the 3d effect of the soundstage (hear the difference without). You could remove it during your listening sessions. The table is also damaging the sound, because it is reflective.
True story but I do love to have both my TV and the Coffee table in place and functioning. I did however experiment with diffusion covers for TV that I can put in front of it when doing critical listening and recording. Room treatment in general is still an ongoing struggle.
Thank you. I really needed to hear this. I truly love my LS-50's, but now might move up to the R3's. Your LS-50's sound really colored for some reason, and I don't hear that in my system.
I take your point about this just being for fun. I listened to one of the tracks (Selfie stick) more directly on UA-cam and it sounded _much_ better (especially the stereo separation) than either of the speakers on your recordings. This is even though the more direct listen also has UA-cam compression, of course. So that kind of makes the comparison problematic, especially when one considers my PC speakers are relatively inexpensive Edifier 1280T's costing less than £100 -- they couldn't possibly be better than either of the demo speakers! With that caveat, insofar as I could discern from your demo, I concluded that the R3's sounded like they had better bass, whilst the LS50's sounded more crisp and detailed -- not sure if after a while they wouldn't get fatiguing, mind. I suspect my Quad S2's, costing only £600 a pair, would give either of the speakers a run for its money. Tharbamar, another reviewer, in fact compared the S2's and the LS50's and seems to agree about those two in particular. I enjoyed the video very much and look forward to when you get a better microphone (not suggesting that your present one is no good, of course!). Cheers and keep up the good work! :-)
I am listening the video trough my Kef R3 and.......ls50 sound like my R3 and R3 in the video sound like something confused and hazey :-) Very strange. Your words in the previous video described better the behaviour of these speakers ;-)
Ls50 need a beefier amp and at the same time they are not suited for full range music and dinamic music as their limit is lower having smaller drivers and being 2 way vs 3 way for the R3, so the total cost of the sistem is higher for the Ls50 while being a “smaller” sistem for smaller rooms.
R3 is more forgiving - meaning that you wont easily get headache when listening to poor recording. Ls50 sounds clear reveal but at the risk making you headach. Note that you wont be lucky to get good record all the time. Once or twice bad experiences with bad records will make you chose r3 definately.
@@iiWiReviews apologies somehow did not notice while on ipad. So whats your personal take on this? Which one overall you'd prefer more? KEF3 or the LS?
It sounds hilariously bad on my Sonos soundbar…. But I loved those R5 at the store the dealer really knew how to set them up. I wish they would go on sale like the Qxxx range. Thanks for video!
After reading the review on the R3, because I own the LS50 meta, I rushed to the net for some listening tests and thanks to you I found this video. In general I find the LS50 more convincing especially for the voice that is more present and in focus than the R3. For this reason I believe that I will not do any upgrades and I will hold on to the LS50 Meta. Nice video, thank you.
Personally, I wouldn't switch from LS50 to R3 as I prefer more revealing nature of LS50. Meta is probably even better than both of these so I'd keep it too.
High Mario, I have the same situation like you, I considered an upgrade to the R3... But like you said, I'm staying with the LS50 meta. The difference to my ear isn't worth a change yet. Enjoyable musical greetings from Switzerland...
In my case I have 2 main systems, one based in Kef C55 and the other based on Kef iQ3 (despite 2 other desk systems) and what I am wondering is if going to th eLS50 wull be really a noticiable improvement over my existing ones. I love specially the C55
Filip Svensson I have the R900s and the LS50s and both have very tight bass (if set up properly). I did have a problem with a coffee table (as in this video) messing up the bass on my R900s, so good bye coffee table. Typically I try to meld form and function, but when it comes to audio quality it's not often an option to meld the two, and for me function takes precedence because I listen to (not look at) music.
Pay attention! The LS50s are exaggerated in the midrange, even 'shouty'. THAT is why so many people who got sucked into buying them dumped them soon after on the Used sites.The R3s are better balanced across the frequency range and have better bass.
To me, and I'm no sound engineer, what I'm hearing in the sound signatures betwwen the two is the difference between a large TV and a smaller one. The smaller one is a little more sharper, detailed, with better color more resolving (LS50) and the other has a broader bigger sound and stage presence, but less detailed in the tiniest way. What I also hear is more air coming from the R3's but not in a good way, like a singer that is not taking deep enough breaths and thus lacks tonality and sounding thinner and lacking fullness. I think a more powerful amp would allow the R3's to breath easier and gain back the edge it's missing.
Listening to this with headphones so not gonna do justice but from what it seems is that the r3 is a more well rounded speaker that isn't screaming for attention. The metas seem too clear to me and can give me a headache some love that but for me treble shouldn't be that overpowering the mids and bass. Seems also the metas will make bad recordings too easy to notice the flaws if that makes sense.
All things considered, the KEF LS50 sound better. They sound full without being fat sounding. They are more refined and natural sounding. Overall the timber is better with the LS50. Track-3 really shows how bloated the R3s are vs, the LS50.
Glad I got the LS50 Ltd black edition. The metas just sound like r series KEF's and have none of the smooth sultry sound that was so carefully voiced it took two entire generations using the 300X as their prototypes which were for the first time ever a single speaker spanned 2 entire generations. The 7th and 8th generations were all the 3001 and 3001ses. That's how much work it took to perfect the voicing of the LS50s to capture the magic of the legendary LS3 5as. The metas just updated to the 12th gen driver and couldn't continue making the original LS50 driver anymore but obviously wouldn't stop selling the most popular box they ever made based on a cheaper version of the 3001SEs design similar to how the HTB2 also got larger squared off and replaced all the metal and rubber gaskets etc with just mdf and eliminated the second driver so the driver was no longer a striking futuristic toroidal design that was not only more compact but was more practical. Having the ability to behave as a force canceled sub allowed it to be placed anywhere even on a glass table or wobbly stand as I do. ua-cam.com/video/NxfQpd87d38/v-deo.html Having the freedom to place a subwoofer anywhere is not only easier to optimize for room acoustics but is just very space saving and keeps it safe from pets. Im glad they finally added what they already started on the 300X series which became the LSx, the 3001SEs and the Blade still are the only Uni Qs with the top of the line tech like the rear structure which allowed for the voice coil to be mounted at about 1/3 in from the rim. All woofers otherwise have their voice coil mounted right to the inner rim. The concave contoured baffle is slightly simulated with the Zflex but isn't anywhere as dramatic giving the Blade and the 3001SEs / Pico Forte 3s a larger more holographic sound. Itd have been bizarre if they just said "we are no longer making the LS50 drivers which took 2+ years to voice to sound as authentically like an upgraded reboot of the LS3 5as, and reestablished our legacy with a brand new Uni Q design that was completely unrecognizable but still established that we could do the best vocal monitor ever, so now we're just gonna add generic 12th gen drivers but good news finally the tweeter gap damper that we secretly snuck into the LSx and otherwise only existed on the Blade and the 3001SEs, are now standard to all UniQs. But just since that just kinda sounded like we were holding out just to ride out several product lines we decided to add a plastic bb maze and create a problem no one else had ever cared to address, and we had already addressed since b and w addressed it in the nautilus by tapering the rear of their top tweeter. So like the LSx let's not focus on the obvious and attribute all the good to the dsp and dac and never even reference that the SST was also ported from the 3001SEs to the LSx which ate essentially just active 3001SEs or Pico Forte 3s integrated LS style. KEF will continue to lower their crossover point and will have the tweeter player lower where the mat tech will eventually matter but until the tweeter actually plays lower than the typically 2k or higher, the rear cavity and mat tech had no actual role except to distract from how mundane adding tech the 3001/SEs, the Blades, and the LSx already had like 8 years ago!
The R3s seem to have a greater range, but are annoying regarding the higher frequencies. I'd have to go for the LS50s. To my ear, their sound is more ballance.
Listened to this with my Sennheiser HD600's.. To my ears, to me, the LS 50 sounds much better actually. If paired with an awesome little sub such as SVS 1000 or something similar... i think they most definitely beat the R3's in the reproduction of music.
Yeah, my thoughts are still the same. This is just for viewers who didn't have the chance to hear either one to have some fun and get the sense of their tonality. I also hope to get a better microphone soon so these demos can be more revealing.
R3 is much better if you live in an apartment and won't buy a subwoofer. LS50 + SVS 1000 pro for same money as R3 is much better if you live in a house without neighbors.
LS is sweeter, warmer, and more natural sounding to me. The R3 is more nasal in the midrange, and more edgy, especially on the female vocal track, but the R3 does have more bass and treble extension, which is evident on the last track, but still sounds to me like it's less natural and trying too hard to be "hi-fi". And, if this is the original LS50, the Meta sounds even better
The KEF R3 is not available to me ... imo and for my ears the KEF LS50 is too expensive for the only average sound offered, there are speakers that are cheaper and are more fun in the long run because they are much more balanced, e.g. Wharfedale Diamond 12.2 or Denton, Dali Spector 2, Q Acoustics 3030i, ELAC Debut Reference DBR62, just to name a few
This goes to show that the more expensive speakers dont always bring enough gain to justify the price difference. My monitor audio silver 100 7g sound better than my kef ls50 metas ans theyre a couple hundred less . Same with the kef r3 and ls50s...
I don't think either one images well. I had the LS50 in my home and the sound seamed to me that was always coming from the speakers (they don't disappear). Didn't hear a Kef speaker that I liked.
really ?... the way to "show" the sound on the two loudspeaker is little bit "poor".... as a soundman engineer... there is no way do determent about the performance in that way.... as for the specification ... the R3 is little bit more flexible for verity of sounds in the other hand ... the LS50 the sound is more compact and solid sound with less over tone in the low hz..(200 - 600)..... all in all... the R3 is more to an open small room and the LS50 is more to a close small room....... hope i helped
I like the air that the LS50s create in the mids and highs around the instruments. This clarity of sound always inspires me. But the bottom end lacks a bit of bite. Here, a good subwoofer offers itself, so you have the best of both speakers.
I like that too, and I'm waiting for my first sub to arrive. Hoping for the best of both...
From everything I've read I agree with your assessment. I have never listened to them in person but I've read loads of comments saying this.
@@iiWiReviews
I am curious, how did the combination with sub go? 🙂
Subwoofers don't play high enough to even pick up those drums so no sound would even come out. The subwoofer would be useless.
I’ve been to an audio store and listened to the R3s and I was indeed surprised at how warm they sounded and to me lacked the airiness which I too also like.
I want to upgrade soon and the ls50 might be the way with a good sub. I have to look into bass management since I’m not too sure what that is really
R3 sound much more lifelike and the sound has a depth and complexity that the thin forward sounding 50s don’t.
Exactly... everyone says it's very bright..yet it's probably the most famous speaker
@@masterchef6694the most overhyped
For twice the price that's no surprise.
Lad your review or comparison of these 2 speakers was spot on after listening to this demo on headphones! Well done!
To my humble ears, LS50 has better nuance, detail, and more life like tonality. R3 has pleasing warm tonality. I'm sure R3 is a great speaker on its own. But, comared to LS50 here, there is much more cabinet resonance. The cabinet resonance could be a pleasing to ears, but on these demo I like LS50 better.
Listening through my speakers I got a sense of better clarity through the LS50's but better bass response on the R3's. Do you think the LS50's with a sub might make a better over all package?
I preferred the R3s.
A bit richer and bigger.
Not a lot but consistently noticeable.
Awesome demo. With headphones could really compare them well. Thanks!
I like them both.
I have the LS50 wireless 2, with 2 Kef Kc62 subwoofers in my semi truck. Sounds really awesome in stereo and for movies.
I also put a samsung Q60C QLED TV in my truck with the Q800C sound bar and subwoofer.
I have 2 great systems in my truck to listen to when i go on the road.
I liked the voices better on the LS50's, more detailed and natural to my ears. The R3's definitely sound bigger and more dynamic.
total agree
great comparison. kef r3 are better because they are 3 full, it gives better separation of frequencies, more spacious, they also sound more natural.
I have R3. But what abot LS50 Meta+sub vs R3
@@streamnoremorse ua-cam.com/video/t3toM1fC2AI/v-deo.html this person compared R3 vs ls50 + sub rel and likes r3 better
@@Евгений-б2ф6ч OK. But there should be Meta version. LS50 is not counting today. Anyway I do not heard LS50 or Meta alive. And I own R3.
I have the LS50 with a SVS SB3000 sub, beautiful sound together, I'd venture the Meta would add a bit more.
LS50 have more a more forward sound and crispier vocals while R3 have a better bass extension and sound bigger. I think both are good, R3 might be more of "fun" speaker for a more variety of music and home theater use if you don't plan using a sub. LS50 sound more analytical and might be better if you like vocals and acoustic music.
Also according to specs KEF R3s seem easier to drive compared to LS50s so you might get a way using them with a more "budget" amp.
R3 definitely more analytical than the LS50
The R3 sounds rolled off and veiled in the highs compared to the LS50. I have heard the LS50's with a good sub, and as others have said that is a great combo. The LS50's have more air and space around instruments with more depth and realism.
I’ve had both Kef Ls-50 needs great recording.. r-3 much more forgiving and relaxing with bass that dips nicely
What do you have now ?
Well, that was interesting. Try as I might, I couldn't decide which one I liked better, even though they sounded distinctly different; The LS 50 seems to focus more energy on the upper midrange and sounds very liquid and resolute, while the R3 sounds fuller, more laid back and rolled-off. For long listening session I'd prefer the R3, for critical nearfield listening or mastering, the LS50.
DecoRyder I have the LS50s and the R900s and I think your assessment is quite accurate overall. However, there are some caveats. The better gear you give both, they start sounding more alike. I have a lot of amps and speakers and only my JC1 mono blocks could properly drive the LS50s to their potential. The LS50's are by far the most finicky speakers I own, but when you get things right, they can play waaaay above their price point and kick some serious tight bass for their size. Normally I have my R900s hooked to the mono blocks, but I had to see what the LS50s could do with a better DAC (SMSL D1) and amp. Even a 150 watt high current Parasound amp (and a few others I tried) can't properly drive the LS50s (the bass gets muddy at about half the output of the amp). The combination of 85dB sensitivity and the fact that the LS50s dip down close to 3ohms, makes them difficult to drive.
I didn't want to blow the LS50s on my mono block, but I fed them at least 150 watts and they stayed super tight and never sounded stressed like they did at half the power on lesser amps. The more you push the LS50s the treble seems to roll off as the bass increases much more. I have a big room and the LS50 take 10 dB more volume to play at the same level the R900s.
Overall I prefer the R900s, but every time I switch back from the LS50s, that little extra sparkle is missed. I am very sensitive to listening fatigue and when I first hooked up my LS50s I couldn't listen for long and wasn't impressed, but after a couple of years of tweaking things (solid sand filled stands are a must and made the biggest improvement), I love the LS50s and they sound very similar to the R series.
The LS50s aren't for people who just want to place them on a bookshelf (or anything else that will resonate muddy bass) against the wall and power them with a weak amp and/or bright DAC/front end.
@@gordthor5351 I like the LS50 sound and this is one of the reasons I think if I want to improve my system to LS50 it would be interesting to go to the LS50 Wireless 2 and be sure I am going to get the best of it and blend it also with a Kef KC62 subwoofer with the crossover in order to get the best from both.
Well said! Why write my own review? I’ll simply say “ditto.”
@@gordthor5351which speakers are they? Polk 900? Kef? I have the r700 polks and they're marvelous too. I'm using burson Audio monoblocks too for the kef ls50 metas and they're real keepers too.
Its crazy i hear different from you guys....the LS50 sound precise and way better. I am hearing this on my Denton 85.
The male voice in the 2nd track is very deep in R3. I hated how it sounded in LS0. Female voice in the 3rd track is better in LS50. Last track I liked on the LS50 again. If I was auditioning in that room, I would definitely have chosen R3 for feel the music factor. I am buying LS50W II + KC62 soon. Hope this combo will kill the R3.
Yes, R3 has bigger and bold sound but also boxy sounding speaker and this ruin everything. LS50 has better seperation and staging, but sometimes sounds lean and metallic.
Listening again, the R3 has a larger and more immersive presentation, while the LS50s is a smaller and more focused one. I like both for different reasons. I think I'd have to hear both in my room to know which I like more
What would you recommend for surround speakers to pair with R7's and R2C? The Ls50wii or R3? Which ones would sound better for 50/50 music and movies? Thank you!
Yes you are right
Im not an audiophile by any means but my impression is that instruments sounds better on the R3 and voice sounds clearer and better on the LS50
Which do you think would be better for LCR HT? I am currently battling the decision between the two. Leaning to LS50 META due to crisp sound or voice and nuanced sound effects. Which would you chose?
LS50 somewhere at 1-2khz region is bright than the R3 , which can be catchy at first and then fatiguing later , R3 is broader with good lower end , in end it is your preference both are quick in timing. I create instrumental music and too bright is no good thing and too dark will not excite , it is overall pleasing sound with exciting elements which keeps on hook in music , vocals are something which need mids presence , in 80s and 90s many vocals were supressed as they called it hifi . Pls check the charts on frequency response of both , also if u have preamp and amp separate , u can make the amp sound bright and compressed by keeping it at higher volume and pre amp at low , and other way to be boring and middle will be neutral . It depends on what u want to do. Personally i don't like metallic cones , more of the paper or kevlar are preference for me. Also companies like KEF , Focal , B&W are masters in producing beautiful sound from anything. Focal 906 is what i have heard best which kind of cleverly hides in the environment. I have yet to see a comparison with LS50.
The TV between the speakers is generally killing the 3d effect of the soundstage (hear the difference without). You could remove it during your listening sessions. The table is also damaging the sound, because it is reflective.
True story but I do love to have both my TV and the Coffee table in place and functioning. I did however experiment with diffusion covers for TV that I can put in front of it when doing critical listening and recording. Room treatment in general is still an ongoing struggle.
To be honest, unless you’re in a treated mastering room, you’re always getting a coloured sound. The room is the biggest part of the equation.
The R3 by itself is a bright-ish speaker objectively, the LS50 is brighter in different areas especially in the 3-4khz region.
I like the R3. It has a warmer sound. I'm sure the LS50 with a good sub would sound swell too. What are the stands that the speakers are sitting on?
Stands are custom made. It's thick metal profiles filed with sand, with spikes on the bottom and bamboo plate on top (underneath the speakers).
Kef R3 Defo sounds nicer to my ears. Clearer and presentation fuller and slightly further forward. Great comparison. Thanks
Hi, thank you for the demo. Did you make any tone control adjustments or it is all flat settings during recording?
All flat
Thank you. I really needed to hear this. I truly love my LS-50's, but now might move up to the R3's. Your LS-50's sound really colored for some reason, and I don't hear that in my system.
I take your point about this just being for fun. I listened to one of the tracks (Selfie stick) more directly on UA-cam and it sounded _much_ better (especially the stereo separation) than either of the speakers on your recordings. This is even though the more direct listen also has UA-cam compression, of course.
So that kind of makes the comparison problematic, especially when one considers my PC speakers are relatively inexpensive Edifier 1280T's costing less than £100 -- they couldn't possibly be better than either of the demo speakers!
With that caveat, insofar as I could discern from your demo, I concluded that the R3's sounded like they had better bass, whilst the LS50's sounded more crisp and detailed -- not sure if after a while they wouldn't get fatiguing, mind. I suspect my Quad S2's, costing only £600 a pair, would give either of the speakers a run for its money. Tharbamar, another reviewer, in fact compared the S2's and the LS50's and seems to agree about those two in particular.
I enjoyed the video very much and look forward to when you get a better microphone (not suggesting that your present one is no good, of course!).
Cheers and keep up the good work! :-)
I am listening the video trough my Kef R3 and.......ls50 sound like my R3 and R3 in the video sound like something confused and hazey :-)
Very strange.
Your words in the previous video described better the behaviour of these speakers ;-)
whats that hiss coming from the ls50's? are they noisy like that? the r3's sound more balanced and warm.
Ls50 need a beefier amp and at the same time they are not suited for full range music and dinamic music as their limit is lower having smaller drivers and being 2 way vs 3 way for the R3, so the total cost of the sistem is higher for the Ls50 while being a “smaller” sistem for smaller rooms.
Any chance of getting triangle br03?
what brand is your stereo stand? thank you.
R3 is more forgiving - meaning that you wont easily get headache when listening to poor recording. Ls50 sounds clear reveal but at the risk making you headach. Note that you wont be lucky to get good record all the time. Once or twice bad experiences with bad records will make you chose r3 definately.
Btw. For the sake of your brain and ears. R3 is the one.
R3 for me
Great comparison. Is there a tracklist?
Names of the tracks are in the description.
@@iiWiReviews apologies somehow did not notice while on ipad. So whats your personal take on this? Which one overall you'd prefer more? KEF3 or the LS?
It sounds hilariously bad on my Sonos soundbar…. But I loved those R5 at the store the dealer really knew how to set them up. I wish they would go on sale like the Qxxx range. Thanks for video!
They are on sale right now. FYI
Tnx for the video! Thinking about getting one of these 2 for studio, wonder if R3 are good enough for mastering 🤔
For mastering, especially if sitting a bit closer, I would go with LS50.
@@iiWiReviews LS50 are mixing monitors. Serious mastering is done in mid field. I believe that R3 can perform very well in studio conditions.
After reading the review on the R3, because I own the LS50 meta, I rushed to the net for some listening tests and thanks to you I found this video. In general I find the LS50 more convincing especially for the voice that is more present and in focus than the R3. For this reason I believe that I will not do any upgrades and I will hold on to the LS50 Meta. Nice video, thank you.
Personally, I wouldn't switch from LS50 to R3 as I prefer more revealing nature of LS50. Meta is probably even better than both of these so I'd keep it too.
High Mario, I have the same situation like you, I considered an upgrade to the R3... But like you said, I'm staying with the LS50 meta. The difference to my ear isn't worth a change yet. Enjoyable musical greetings from Switzerland...
In my case I have 2 main systems, one based in Kef C55 and the other based on Kef iQ3 (despite 2 other desk systems) and what I am wondering is if going to th eLS50 wull be really a noticiable improvement over my existing ones. I love specially the C55
I agree with you
The R3s sound much less focused, and a little boomy. But the boominess might be because of the room? Thanks for this video, enjoyed it!
Filip Svensson I have the R900s and the LS50s and both have very tight bass (if set up properly). I did have a problem with a coffee table (as in this video) messing up the bass on my R900s, so good bye coffee table. Typically I try to meld form and function, but when it comes to audio quality it's not often an option to meld the two, and for me function takes precedence because I listen to (not look at) music.
Thanks for the video ! That what im looking for ! Its perfect, thank you very much
R3s have more bass but I prefer LS50s sound... more clear and defined.
Pay attention! The LS50s are exaggerated in the midrange, even 'shouty'. THAT is why so many people who got sucked into buying them dumped them soon after on the Used sites.The R3s are better balanced across the frequency range and have better bass.
Definitely a monster of detail, LS 50 Meta
please review the e1da 9038s gen 3....I am deciding between this and the s9 pro.
It's true to say that ls50 starts from 38hz, but ls50 from 47hz
Thank you. I think you can't go wrong with either.
To me, and I'm no sound engineer, what I'm hearing in the sound signatures betwwen the two is the difference between a large TV and a smaller one. The smaller one is a little more sharper, detailed, with better color more resolving (LS50) and the other has a broader bigger sound and stage presence, but less detailed in the tiniest way.
What I also hear is more air coming from the R3's but not in a good way, like a singer that is not taking deep enough breaths and thus lacks tonality and sounding thinner and lacking fullness. I think a more powerful amp would allow the R3's to breath easier and gain back the edge it's missing.
Listening to this with headphones so not gonna do justice but from what it seems is that the r3 is a more well rounded speaker that isn't screaming for attention. The metas seem too clear to me and can give me a headache some love that but for me treble shouldn't be that overpowering the mids and bass. Seems also the metas will make bad recordings too easy to notice the flaws if that makes sense.
Man my vote is for ls50. I like both but the ls50 seems so much cleaner.
All things considered, the KEF LS50 sound better. They sound full without being fat sounding. They are more refined and natural sounding. Overall the timber is better with the LS50. Track-3 really shows how bloated the R3s are vs, the LS50.
Glad I got the LS50 Ltd black edition. The metas just sound like r series KEF's and have none of the smooth sultry sound that was so carefully voiced it took two entire generations using the 300X as their prototypes which were for the first time ever a single speaker spanned 2 entire generations. The 7th and 8th generations were all the 3001 and 3001ses. That's how much work it took to perfect the voicing of the LS50s to capture the magic of the legendary LS3 5as.
The metas just updated to the 12th gen driver and couldn't continue making the original LS50 driver anymore but obviously wouldn't stop selling the most popular box they ever made based on a cheaper version of the 3001SEs design similar to how the HTB2 also got larger squared off and replaced all the metal and rubber gaskets etc with just mdf and eliminated the second driver so the driver was no longer a striking futuristic toroidal design that was not only more compact but was more practical. Having the ability to behave as a force canceled sub allowed it to be placed anywhere even on a glass table or wobbly stand as I do.
ua-cam.com/video/NxfQpd87d38/v-deo.html
Having the freedom to place a subwoofer anywhere is not only easier to optimize for room acoustics but is just very space saving and keeps it safe from pets.
Im glad they finally added what they already started on the 300X series which became the LSx, the 3001SEs and the Blade still are the only Uni Qs with the top of the line tech like the rear structure which allowed for the voice coil to be mounted at about 1/3 in from the rim. All woofers otherwise have their voice coil mounted right to the inner rim. The concave contoured baffle is slightly simulated with the Zflex but isn't anywhere as dramatic giving the Blade and the 3001SEs / Pico Forte 3s a larger more holographic sound.
Itd have been bizarre if they just said "we are no longer making the LS50 drivers which took 2+ years to voice to sound as authentically like an upgraded reboot of the LS3 5as, and reestablished our legacy with a brand new Uni Q design that was completely unrecognizable but still established that we could do the best vocal monitor ever, so now we're just gonna add generic 12th gen drivers but good news finally the tweeter gap damper that we secretly snuck into the LSx and otherwise only existed on the Blade and the 3001SEs, are now standard to all UniQs. But just since that just kinda sounded like we were holding out just to ride out several product lines we decided to add a plastic bb maze and create a problem no one else had ever cared to address, and we had already addressed since b and w addressed it in the nautilus by tapering the rear of their top tweeter.
So like the LSx let's not focus on the obvious and attribute all the good to the dsp and dac and never even reference that the SST was also ported from the 3001SEs to the LSx which ate essentially just active 3001SEs or Pico Forte 3s integrated LS style.
KEF will continue to lower their crossover point and will have the tweeter player lower where the mat tech will eventually matter but until the tweeter actually plays lower than the typically 2k or higher, the rear cavity and mat tech had no actual role except to distract from how mundane adding tech the 3001/SEs, the Blades, and the LSx already had like 8 years ago!
KEF LS50 rules.
Similar sound signature though. They’re both a KEF
Not the metas, correct?
No, the original ones.
Kef Ls 50 is my option here! :)
The R3s seem to have a greater range, but are annoying regarding the higher frequencies. I'd have to go for the LS50s. To my ear, their sound is more ballance.
Ls50 really good. Would do even better in Class A.
Feels like H90 is not enough for R3. Has to be H190 at least.
H120 Would be fine
what kind of hifi rack is that. I like it
Thanks! It's hand made using solid walnut and aluminium. My friend and I made two, one for each of us.
Very useful demo. The R3 sounds bloated just like the Q350.
The R3s sound fuller while the LS sounder more open without lower frequencies.
The LS50s are unbeatable on vocals
Listened to this with my Sennheiser HD600's..
To my ears, to me, the LS 50 sounds much better actually.
If paired with an awesome little sub such as SVS 1000 or something similar... i think they most definitely beat the R3's in the reproduction of music.
Ill take the LS 50
After this demo, what are your thought? What was being heard better? I noticed differences, but I was curios about your opinions
You can find a full R3 review video from few weeks ago. Then look at the time stamp saying "vs LS50" - there I shared a lot about it.
@@iiWiReviews I was thinking this is a newer demo that uncovered new things in your opinion. That one I know. 🙂 it was how I found you as I have R3’s
Yeah, my thoughts are still the same. This is just for viewers who didn't have the chance to hear either one to have some fun and get the sense of their tonality.
I also hope to get a better microphone soon so these demos can be more revealing.
Why not Meta? :)
I don't have them. 😭😭😭
Ls50 for me. I have the reference and I still prefer the ls50.
I'd love to hear the Triangle BR03 thrown into the mix. It's a very different beast from something like an LS50.
I’ve had all 3. Small room with normal non audiophile records bro 3 all day.
I had a different experience I sent the bro 3 back and got the Denton 85. The bro was to sharp and thin sounding for me.
R3 is much better if you live in an apartment and won't buy a subwoofer. LS50 + SVS 1000 pro for same money as R3 is much better if you live in a house without neighbors.
LS is sweeter, warmer, and more natural sounding to me. The R3 is more nasal in the midrange, and more edgy, especially on the female vocal track, but the R3 does have more bass and treble extension, which is evident on the last track, but still sounds to me like it's less natural and trying too hard to be "hi-fi". And, if this is the original LS50, the Meta sounds even better
So you prefer Meta + sub. I have R3. I heard them personally and bought after.
One voice and acoustic guitars are not enough to evaluate speakers. This kind of music would sound just fine on anything.
Hats off to an awesome and very efficient comparison set-up and recording. From what I can tell, LS 50 wins.
R3 designed to be listened without grills
The R3
this is ls50 metas not ls50..
The KEF R3 is not available to me ... imo and for my ears the KEF LS50 is too expensive for the only average sound offered, there are speakers that are cheaper and are more fun in the long run because they are much more balanced, e.g. Wharfedale Diamond 12.2 or Denton, Dali Spector 2, Q Acoustics 3030i, ELAC Debut Reference DBR62, just to name a few
i’m listening to this review thru my ls50 metas… 😂
R3 sound boxy but ls50 has it's own problems the biggest probably bring tiring over longer sessions.
I’ll keep my 50’s…a better value to me….
Toe in for kef speakers
Is not so recommended, the sound stage is damaged
RS 3 🔊👍
This goes to show that the more expensive speakers dont always bring enough gain to justify the price difference. My monitor audio silver 100 7g sound better than my kef ls50 metas ans theyre a couple hundred less . Same with the kef r3 and ls50s...
Listening on hifiman arya. Lx50 more preffer. More open for me
ls50 more voice presence that r3
I don't think either one images well. I had the LS50 in my home and the sound seamed to me that was always coming from the speakers (they don't disappear). Didn't hear a Kef speaker that I liked.
really ?... the way to "show" the sound on the two loudspeaker is little bit "poor".... as a soundman engineer... there is no way do determent about the performance in that way.... as for the specification ... the R3 is little bit more flexible for verity of sounds in the other hand ... the LS50 the sound is more compact and solid sound with less over tone in the low hz..(200 - 600)..... all in all... the R3 is more to an open small room and the LS50 is more to a close small room....... hope i helped
Ls50metas are the better bargain
So its 100% worth spending the extra $500
Deeper bass, more open sound.
咁都仲叫做同軸音箱
The TV also reduces the size of the soundstage
for me R3😁
LS50 wins. Clearer, dynamic interaction of low frequencies and transparent sound.
Ls50 top
Eppure anche con un pochino meno di bassi da casa preferisco il suono delle LS50
me gustaron mas los kef ls 50 meta
Keff ls50
R3 much better here
R3>>LS50
ls50 은 심심하다.