KEF LS60 Wireless HiFi System

Hey, just talking about my issues. My first pair of active speakers were Paradigm LCR-450's that I bought in around 1998. They worked great until until one of the speakers went a bit wobbly around 2013.

Don't know exactly what the problem was, but I think something about the active crossover between the mid/tweeter went south in one speaker.

Since I am also a musician and recording engineer, I had my system set up to use the IK Multimedia Audyssey ARC plug-in on my Mac. What ever was going on was fixed via DSP for music listening using Audio Hijack.

On music, especially if it was mono, you could easily hear something was wrong. Using the DSP, it corrected the speaker disparity.

When listening to movies or TV in surround, for the most part, you really couldn't discern the problem. Funny how that works.

Anyway, KEF makes really fantastic speakers. The electronics that come with them? Not sold on that yet.

Just so you know:

1: Again, even two LS50 Wireless speakers with four Rythmik L12 servo subs is about $1,500 cheaper and will give you a drastically better & more potent low end. Sorry that they take up about 3 more square feet of your rooms footage.

2: I don't have four L12 servo subs because I want a shit ton of bass... I want whatever bass that is to be reproduced to be rendered as cleanly as possible. Having 4 subs means that none of them is ever straining to recreate lowest notes.

3: I am a bass player and I, from time to time, play bass through my home theater system via a Roland GT-10B from a S/PDIF cable. Just for fun, I up mix the stereo output to full surround via DTS. I have a particular patch called "The Voice of God" on the GT-10B. It's two pitch shifters (one above, one below), some distortion and a ton of time-based effects. It lives up to the name.

As good as the LS60 is, it could never compete with my system. Hey, again, not saying that it's not a really fine speaker, but that you can have better for less money.

At least it's not like that crap from Wilson Audio where they take about $6-8K worth of speakers that you can buy from Madisound and then want you to pay $200-500K because they came up with a "magical box" in which they house them.

Most audiophiles are morons. There is nothing magical about your personal ability to hear...anything.

Understand science and you will see how many charlatans their are in the hi-fi industry.

9 minutes ago, jeffhenning said:

Most audiophiles are morons. There is nothing magical about your personal ability to hear...anything.

 

Understand science and you will see how many charlatans their are in the hi-fi industry.

Is this based on your longitudinal study of those who identify as audiophiles? Whatever it’s based on, I’ll say it’s completely wrong. 

@jeffhenning My fault. I should’ve seen it was you posting. You like to stir the pot and present yourself as someone with elevated intelligence. Perhaps some self reflection would be good. 
 

For those interested, here’s another example. 
 

“most people aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are”

https://www.soundstagehifi.com/index.php/reader-feedback/1421-on-amplifiers-and-other-things

It's based upon the fact that there are reviews of $500 USB audio cables, $2K power cables and things even more idiotic than those... and people give them credence.

If what you are espousing is not based on real science & measurements, it is pure junk.

The audio reviewing/journalistic industry, for the most part, is based upon imbeciles with no background in science publishing their opinions.

That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

You can love that.. or shove that! I don't care which you decide upon.

5 hours ago, jeffhenning said:

Hey, just talking about my issues. My first pair of active speakers were Paradigm LCR-450's that I bought in around 1998. They worked great until until one of the speakers went a bit wobbly around 2013.

 

Don't know exactly what the problem was, but I think something about the active crossover between the mid/tweeter went south in one speaker.

 

Since I am also a musician and recording engineer, I had my system set up to use the IK Multimedia Audyssey ARC plug-in on my Mac. What ever was going on was fixed via DSP for music listening using Audio Hijack.

 

On music, especially if it was mono, you could easily hear something was wrong. Using the DSP, it corrected the speaker disparity.

 

When listening to movies or TV in surround, for the most part, you really couldn't discern the problem. Funny how that works.

 

Anyway, KEF makes really fantastic speakers. The electronics that come with them? Not sold on that yet.

 

Just so you know:

1: Again, even two LS50 Wireless speakers with four Rythmik L12 servo subs is about $1,500 cheaper and will give you a drastically better & more potent low end. Sorry that they take up about 3 more square feet of your rooms footage.

 

2: I don't have four L12 servo subs because I want a shit ton of bass... I want whatever bass that is to be reproduced to be rendered as cleanly as possible. Having 4 subs means that none of them is ever straining to recreate lowest notes.

 

3: I am a bass player and I, from time to time, play bass through my home theater system via a Roland GT-10B from a S/PDIF cable. Just for fun, I up mix the stereo output to full surround via DTS. I have a particular patch called "The Voice of God" on the GT-10B. It's two pitch shifters (one above, one below), some distortion and a ton of time-based effects. It lives up to the name.

 

As good as the LS60 is, it could never compete with my system. Hey, again, not saying that it's not a really fine speaker, but that you can have better for less money.

 

At least it's not like that crap from Wilson Audio where they take about $6-8K worth of speakers that you can buy from Madisound and then want you to pay $200-500K because they came up with a "magical box" in which they house them.

 

Most audiophiles are morons. There is nothing magical about your personal ability to hear...anything.

 

Understand science and you will see how many charlatans their are in the hi-fi industry.

 

The LS60W may improve upon the LS50W in other areas that no amount of subwoofers can fix.

The LS60s to me look like my Kef LS50 wireless 2's sneaked downstairs from my bedroom during the day when I am at work and bred with my Kii Bxts. I think that is a good thing :)

I do wish there was a model with the KF92 subs built in rather than the Kc62s.

Any comments online that include belittling others as morons, removes any respect I could have for the person posting

On 5/16/2022 at 10:35 AM, firedog said:

I can think of a couple of reasons:

One, the 26hz is with a significant roll off.

Two, if you want to play music with very low bass as a fairly loud volume, the system bass limiter will kick in. The system is designed that way at higher volumes (loud, but not deafening) to protect the relatively small woofers that produce low bass with very long woofer extension. It will still sound ok, and probably good enough for most, but won't quite cut it for those that want top notch, natural sounding low bass reproduction at volume. For most music at most volumes it will sound fine. 

I can confirm that adding a sub can improve the sound of the other active system components by taking some weight off the built in woofers. When I added a sub to my LS50 wireless, it made a huge difference in how the lower midrange and mid midrange sounded. KEF's LFE connection takes a huge load off the main speakers. Striking enough that for a couple days I was switching back and forth between sub and no sub to listen harder. (and to kick myself for waiting over a year to try it.) When I added a sub to my LSX speakers, it was even more of a transformation. 

Adding a sub to passive speakers doesn't have that much of an effect unless you've got both sub and speakers wired through electronics to reduce the low frequency burden on the main speakers. 

On 5/16/2022 at 3:39 PM, jeffhenning said:

It's based upon the fact that there are reviews of $500 USB audio cables, $2K power cables and things even more idiotic than those... and people give them credence.

 

If what you are espousing is not based on real science & measurements, it is pure junk.

 

The audio reviewing/journalistic industry, for the most part, is based upon imbeciles with no background in science publishing their opinions.

 

That is not my opinion. That is a fact.

 

You can love that.. or shove that! I don't care which you decide upon.

 

Anyone who doubts that peoples' hearing abilities vary significantly is just flat out belligerently ignorant. Why would hearing be any different than every other of the human senses? There are people who can taste a wine and tell you the grape variety, year, region, and often the vineyard of origin, where most people would be fortunate to get the grape variety right. (And some can tell a red from a white, and that's it.) No surprise - the number of taste buds on tongues, and ratio of different types of buds, varies wildly across the population, and the willingness to practice and learn to attune those taste buds varies even more wildly. There are people whose reaction times are 4-5x faster than the average person. In one part of their body, but not in the others. Some people can smell mercaptan, others can't. Genetics. Some people can smell a perfume and name all the scent components. Most of us just know there's perfume in the room. There are people who can look at a color patch and tell you which Pantone number they're looking at. 

And as to hearing. Some people have perfect pitch. I don't, I only have relative pitch. (You can look those up, Mr. Henning. But you won't.) With a little more ability - I can tell if an orchestra or musician is tuned to A 440 or A 432. My guess is Mr. Henning would not be capable of that. I can also tell you what kind of metal bell is on a trumpet or trombone when I hear it played. A lot of people can do that though, it's why you see whole orchestral brass sections playing identical instruments. It makes me a bit crazy hearing an orchestra that isn't that conscientious, the blend just isn't there. (Although if they're mixing red brass and silver bells, much harder to pick apart.) Many musicians can tell the sound differences between one piece and two piece bell construction, and have strong preferences. And you, Mr. Henning? At my advanced years, I can still hear the goddamn mosquito repellers that some businesses put up.

Some of the differences are genetic, some are epigenetic, some are talents (you're born with), some are skills (you can develop.)

And yet there's Mr. Henning, who holds out his inability to hear distinctions in sound waves as the superior definition of human auditory abilities. One wonders if he thinks his taste buds, eyes, nose, and central nervous system are also the acme of human achievement.

2 hours ago, ednaz said:

Anyone who doubts that peoples' hearing abilities vary significantly is just flat out belligerently ignorant. Why would hearing be any different than every other of the human senses? There are people who can taste a wine and tell you the grape variety, year, region, and often the vineyard of origin, where most people would be fortunate to get the grape variety right. (And some can tell a red from a white, and that's it.) No surprise - the number of taste buds on tongues, and ratio of different types of buds, varies wildly across the population, and the willingness to practice and learn to attune those taste buds varies even more wildly. There are people whose reaction times are 4-5x faster than the average person. In one part of their body, but not in the others. Some people can smell mercaptan, others can't. Genetics. Some people can smell a perfume and name all the scent components. Most of us just know there's perfume in the room. There are people who can look at a color patch and tell you which Pantone number they're looking at. 

 

And as to hearing. Some people have perfect pitch. I don't, I only have relative pitch. (You can look those up, Mr. Henning. But you won't.) With a little more ability - I can tell if an orchestra or musician is tuned to A 440 or A 432. My guess is Mr. Henning would not be capable of that. I can also tell you what kind of metal bell is on a trumpet or trombone when I hear it played. A lot of people can do that though, it's why you see whole orchestral brass sections playing identical instruments. It makes me a bit crazy hearing an orchestra that isn't that conscientious, the blend just isn't there. (Although if they're mixing red brass and silver bells, much harder to pick apart.) Many musicians can tell the sound differences between one piece and two piece bell construction, and have strong preferences. And you, Mr. Henning? At my advanced years, I can still hear the goddamn mosquito repellers that some businesses put up.

 

Some of the differences are genetic, some are epigenetic, some are talents (you're born with), some are skills (you can develop.)

And yet there's Mr. Henning, who holds out his inability to hear distinctions in sound waves as the superior definition of human auditory abilities. One wonders if he thinks his taste buds, eyes, nose, and central nervous system are also the acme of human achievement.

And none of that means that you aren't susceptible to expectation bias when you listen to and compare audio equipment. So even if you have the best hearing, you can fool yourself.

On 5/19/2022 at 1:46 PM, firedog said:

And none of that means that you aren't susceptible to expectation bias when you listen to and compare audio equipment. So even if you have the best hearing, you can fool yourself.

Nope. And every person is susceptible to a hundred kinds of bias including bias about other peoples' bias. Which happens to be the most common bias - assuming that everyone else on the planet is no different from you.

If we weren't all significantly different from each other, we'd have been exterminated as a species through the inexorable process of inbreeding.
 

I've had a blast taking people who believed scientifically unsupported baloney like " peripheral vision perceives color" or "the way to respond fastest to a stimulus is to have it in the center of your vision" into tests of their personal ego-centric biases, and capturing the results on video. 

The whole madness of "anything I don't agree with has got to be manipulation by controlling powers" or "anything I don't agree with can't be true because I define human consciousness" or "anyone other than me is wrong because {fill in the blank reason} is the basis of why millions of people believe in election fraud (it's impossible anybody could disagree with my opinions), with zero tangible evidence, despite nearly $100MM being spent on looking for fraud and finding nothing.

As a species, we're on the decline. Because of ego driven ignorance.

1 hour ago, ednaz said:

Nope. And every person is susceptible to a hundred kinds of bias including bias about other peoples' bias. Which happens to be the most common bias - assuming that everyone else on the planet is no different from you.

 

If we weren't all significantly different from each other, we'd have been exterminated as a species through the inexorable process of inbreeding.
 

I've had a blast taking people who believed scientifically unsupported baloney like " peripheral vision perceives color" or "the way to respond fastest to a stimulus is to have it in the center of your vision" into tests of their personal ego-centric biases, and capturing the results on video. 

 

The whole madness of "anything I don't agree with has got to be manipulation by controlling powers" or "anything I don't agree with can't be true because I define human consciousness" or "anyone other than me is wrong because {fill in the blank reason} is the basis of why millions of people believe in election fraud (it's impossible anybody could disagree with my opinions), with zero tangible evidence, despite nearly $100MM being spent on looking for fraud and finding nothing.

 

As a species, we're on the decline. Because of ego driven ignorance.

Didn't say anything like that. It's all your projection of your ideas onto me. So the ego driven ignorance is yours.

There have been massive amounts of experiments on human perception, including audio perception. No one's immune from expectaton bias in how their brain interprets data.

Saying everyone has expectation bias is not saying everyone has the same expectation bias or in the same amounts. Is that so hard for you to understand?

It's clear from many scientific experiments that humans are all susceptible to various kinds of expectation bias in various amounts. If you deny that, it's you who has the problem with science. Or perhaps just an inablility to see subtlety and the very variation you claim to be triumphing?

On 5/13/2022 at 8:09 AM, PeterG said:

Which beliefs?  That active speakers could not sound so good, or that a system could not so so good at the LS50 price point? Other?  Thanks

I should have been more specific but both those for sure.

Also, I've started to wonder if crossover placement being before the amplifiers might provide a lot of benefits; amplifiers being the final component before the speaker drivers.

7 hours ago, loop7 said:

 

I should have been more specific but both those for sure.

 

Also, I've started to wonder if crossover placement being before the amplifiers might provide a lot of benefits; amplifiers being the final component before the speaker drivers.

Thanks.  The closest I've come to audiophile active systems is my Naim Muso Qb, not something competitive with a traditional stereo set up.  But as I've read more on the KEFs, it does seem there could be real advantages to this architecture that might mitigate or even outweigh the inherent design sacrifices.  I look forward to hearing these someday