Shoot out at the OK corral!

[DaveyF]

I remember the SF from the 90's- it was a gorgeous looking speaker and an impressive listen; I imagine it probably ranks as a classic of its type. Just wondering whether you can claim to have fully compared the two speakers on a level playing field in this sense: I gather, perhaps mistakenly, that you had to use the Nordost cable for the KEF speaker to eliminate variables in your comparison. Though that may be sound scientific method, perhaps that cable, or even the amp choices, were not optimal for the KEF. I have found that the synergy of all components, including the wire, contributes to the overall result. Of course, changing other things, apart from the speakers, makes any comparison harder by far. And, I gather, given the little KEF's price point, perhaps the typical buyer wouldn't be spending crazy money on cables and amps to get to the best result. So, I'm not discounting what you heard, but question whether the 'isolating all variables' approach is a valid one for judging components, recognizing that this may lead to endless variables, chaos and, inevitable insanity. But, isn't that how we roll?

While I have to agree that my system is optimized for the GH speakers, i still believe that the test was valid. One could optimize a system for the LS50's I suppose, BUT how many reviewer's do you see that optimize their system to the speaker(s) under review. ( or for that matter any piece of gear). I do NOT believe that the LS50's were shorted in any way in this comparison...to change out other components, as you seem to suggest, to attempt to find a synergy with each speaker in question would appear to me to be foolhardy at best.

 

[Bill Hart]

I don't think it is likely. The idea of matching $1500 speakers with a $2000 sub is the same probability of matching them with $2000 speaker cables. What is the difference?
They both don't make sense to me

Ad maybe you agree????

"And, I gather, given the little KEF's price point, perhaps the typical buyer wouldn't be spending crazy money on cables and amps to get to the best result"

Does this not apply to a sub as well?

I do understand what you are saying about flexibility, but I have yet to encounter someone who spent more on their sub then satellites.

Right, I recognize the budget imbalance between the satellites and the sub; my point was meant to emphasize the benefit of having the woofer separate from the rest- it is possible that within any given budget, you could obtain better sound in a room with the sat/sub over an 'integrated' speaker.

 

[Bill Hart]

While I have to agree that my system is optimized for the GH speakers, i still believe that the test was valid. One could optimize a system for the LS50's I suppose, BUT how many reviewer's do you see that optimize their system to the speaker(s) under review. ( or for that matter any piece of gear). I do NOT believe that the LS50's were shorted in any way in this comparison...to change out other components, as you seem to suggest, to attempt to find a synergy with each speaker in question would appear to me to be foolhardy at best.

I wasn't questioning the integrity of what you did, or the results, but do believe that synergies make a huge difference. As I said, it is not terribly practical, even for a professional reviewer, let alone for the buyer of a speaker at the price point of the small KEF.

 

[Andre Marc]

Right, I recognize the budget imbalance between the satellites and the sub; my point was meant to emphasize the benefit of having the woofer separate from the rest- it is possible that within any given budget, you could obtain better sound in a room with the sat/sub over an 'integrated' speaker.

Agree, it is certainly possible. But not with a "budget" or typical HT sub.

As a matter of fact, an interesting note...in speaking to the KEF reps, their research tells
them that buyers of the LS50 in the vast majority are inserting them into systems topping out at $5000 total, including the speakers.

 

[DaveyF]

Not necessarily, Andre. It gives you the flexibility to locate the woofer in the room in a way that optimizes performance and avoid some room interactions, while positioning the mid-tweets for best imaging, soundstage and all that other 'stuff.' As to price balance between the two aspects, perhaps, but the idea of separating the woofs from the rest makes good sense.

That's true Bill. BUT I strongly suspect that anyone who is buying the LS50's is doing so because their budget stretches to the LS50's. Therefore, I would believe that that same Buyer is not going to want to have to dip into their pocket for the additional $$$ for the sub. Otherwise, as Andre points out, that same Buyer is going up-line or to a different speaker.
In my very small room, I do not believe that I have the space for a larger set of speakers....implying a more full-range set. So, the satellite/sub set up makes sense. ( Due as you said to the positioning flexibility).

 

[Orb]

I have some killer drum tracks that I use to test systems with. I brought them to work where we have the LS50 and played them. I just about fell of my chair. I could not believe the way the LS 50s were reproducing the bass. Absolutely amazing. I kept thinking boy, had I forgotten how these speakers sounded and had *this much* bass. Right then my chief designer walks in and says he had just added the new Revel sub to the room! The sub was actually behind me in the corner. He had used the DSP programming to blend the sub with the LS50. The integration was amazing. I could swear the bass was coming out of the LS50 cones. Even after he told me I could not localize the sub.

The Revel sub took this speaker to a subliminal level. To this day I can't get over the amazing transformation that Revel provided to the set up.

So count me in the (converted to) subwoofer camp when it comes to LS 50 . Of course, getting the subs placed and blended into the LS50 with smooth response is key. There will be many ways to do it wrong and have it be boomy, etc.

Amir,
was that one or two subs and you ok sharing what additional product was used to act as the active crossover between the LS50 and the sub/s?
Very interested.
Thanks
Orb

 

[microstrip]

While I have to agree that my system is optimized for the GH speakers, i still believe that the test was valid. One could optimize a system for the LS50's I suppose, BUT how many reviewer's do you see that optimize their system to the speaker(s) under review ( or for that matter any piece of gear). I do NOT believe that the LS50's were shorted in any way in this comparison...to change out other components, as you seem to suggest, to attempt to find a synergy with each speaker in question would appear to me to be foolhardy at best.

Davey,

The existence of poor reviewers is a poor defense for your argument IMHO carrying such reviews without optimizing systems is funny for the participants, but completely inconclusive and even misleading for those who just read and do not participate and have no experience with the items. I have owned the GH and they have a strong character, needing appropriate cables and amplifiers. Although I have no experience with the LS50, I still own the B&W SS25 mini monitor and I know pretty well than an optimum system for the SS25 will sound poor for the GH.

It is why I discard strongly negative reviews - most of the time they are due to the inability of the reviewer of creating a system or proper listening conditions for this precise equipment or negative biases.

 

[microstrip]

Thanks. It is the new Revel B110: http://www.revelspeakers.com/Products/Details/231

Check out the LFO (low frequency optimization) software there (runs on both Mac and Windows). It is really cool and best software I have seen for sub optimization.

Retail price is $2000.

Amir,

It looks a great product - a sub with an USB port to allow for setting via PC! But when looking at the Windows version manual I was disappointed to read "NOTE: These instructions explain how to measure and equalize a multi-channel surround-sound system. For instructions on how measure and equalize a two-channel audio system, please see Measuring a Two-Channel System's Low-Frequency Response in Your Listening Room, on page 25." Can we access this last manual?

Also it was not clear to me how can we set a system having two subs.

 

[mep]

Sorry mep, BUT you're not quite right about the drivers.. The SF GH woofer was made by Audio technology and NOT Scanspeak ( although to be fair, audio technology is owned by Per Skaaning---the founder of Scan Tech). The tweeter is in fact a highly modified Dynaudio Esotec ( I believe) and not an Esotar. ( Although this has also been widely disputed over the years with many reviewers and others claiming it is a modded Esotar. SF themselves have been VERY closed mouthed about this whole issue.)
Nonetheless, after a lot of research, i'm fairly certain it is a modded Esotec.

Sorry Davey, but I'm not wrong. I simply reiterated what Martin Colloms said in his Stereophile review:

The Guarneri's bass driver, custom-made for Sonus Faber by Scan-Tech, employs a larger-than-usual voice-coil 54mm (2") in diameter. This is energized by a huge magnet with a deep, 14mm top plate. The light, polypropylene diaphragm has a decorative milled surface, and is suspended on a half-roll surround of natural rubber, with minimal loss at low frequencies. The diecast woofer frame is nominally 165mm (6.5") in diameter, and the rear port, ca 1.6" in diameter by 4" long, tunes the system to 52Hz.

The tweeter, also custom-built, is a version of Dynaudio's Esotar unit and features a 28mm surface-damped soft dome made of silk. The unit is fitted with a special, large, rear chamber carved from solid walnut. The two drive-units are vertically aligned on the contoured, low-diffraction front baffle, the tweeter on the top.

So if you need to go and correct someone over what drivers were actually installed in your speakers, take it up with Martin Colloms.

 

[mep]

I don't think it is likely. The idea of matching $1500 speakers with a $2000 sub is the same probability of matching them with $2000 speaker cables. What is the difference?
They both don't make sense to me

Ad maybe you agree????

"And, I gather, given the little KEF's price point, perhaps the typical buyer wouldn't be spending crazy money on cables and amps to get to the best result"

Does this not apply to a sub as well?

I do understand what you are saying about flexibility, but I have yet to encounter someone who spent more on their sub then satellites.

I did, but I did it unintentionally. I bought a pair of subs to go with my Def Tech speakers that cost almost $2K each and now I'm using them with the LS50s. My custom made Sound Anchor stands for the LS50s cost over half as much as the LS50s. Anybody else doing that? Does Davey have the SF stands to go with his SF speakers? If so, are those the stands you put the LS50s on? According to Martin Colloms, the stands are "no less than 39" tall" which is pretty tall and would possibly place the center of the LS50 driver over the top of your head. Now, since according to Davey Martin Colloms got it all wrong with regards to what drivers are in the GH cabinets, maybe Martin can't measure speaker stands either and the height is actually just perfect for the LS50s.

But back to your premise that no one is using a $2K sub with a pair of $1500 speakers because for $3500 you can really buy something special. Really? Like what?

 

[DaveyF]

Sorry Davey, but I'm not wrong. I simply reiterated what Martin Colloms said in his Stereophile review:

The Guarneri's bass driver, custom-made for Sonus Faber by Scan-Tech, employs a larger-than-usual voice-coil 54mm (2") in diameter. This is energized by a huge magnet with a deep, 14mm top plate. The light, polypropylene diaphragm has a decorative milled surface, and is suspended on a half-roll surround of natural rubber, with minimal loss at low frequencies. The diecast woofer frame is nominally 165mm (6.5") in diameter, and the rear port, ca 1.6" in diameter by 4" long, tunes the system to 52Hz.

The tweeter, also custom-built, is a version of Dynaudio's Esotar unit and features a 28mm surface-damped soft dome made of silk. The unit is fitted with a special, large, rear chamber carved from solid walnut. The two drive-units are vertically aligned on the contoured, low-diffraction front baffle, the tweeter on the top.

So if you need to go and correct someone over what drivers were actually installed in your speakers, take it up with Martin Colloms.

Mep, Martin Collom's review is well known in the SF community. Unfortunately, he didn't do the necessary research or check with SF as to actual driver make-up. The rest of review is very good, pity about those errors.However, does got to show that we cannot believe all of the things that we read in print.

 

[mep]

Mep, Martin Collom's review is well known in the SF community. Unfortunately, he didn't do the necessary research or check with SF as to actual driver make-up. The rest of review is very good, pity about those errors.However, does got to show that we cannot believe all of the things that we read in print.

So you don't think that Martin Colloms called up SF and asked them what drivers they were using? How do you know that? You think it was just a rectal extraction on his part? The SF "community" knows all? Didn't you just say in your previous post that it is still being debated whether the tweeter was the Esotar or the Esotec? I would seriously think that Martin Colloms would have much more insider access than the "SF community." I would like to think that Martin did his homework before he categorically stated what drivers were used in the GH.

 

[rbbert]

Mark, are the LS50's plus subs your main listening system now?

 

[DaveyF]

So you don't think that Martin Colloms called up SF and asked them what drivers they were using? How do you know that? You think it was just a rectal extraction on his part? The SF "community" knows all? Didn't you just say in your previous post that it is still being debated whether the tweeter was the Esotar or the Esotec? I would seriously think that Martin Colloms would have much more insider access than the "SF community." I would like to think that Martin did his homework before he categorically stated what drivers were used in the GH.

Mep, one of these days you will learn to be a little less argumentative...No???
If you would like, I can send you a PM ( or we can do this online, your choice, LOL) that will show you exactly how I know this. Maybe then you will see that I am NOT just talking crap.The SF community has known of this issue in the Colloms review for years...the fact that you don't know is understandable. The debate that is going on regarding the fact that SF uses Esotar or Esotec is ongoing outside of the SF community ( on forums, like this one...:roll eyes )

 

[mep]

Davey-Please send me a PM that will show me exactly how you know what drivers are in your speakers. I think inquisitive is a better descriptor than argumentative. Martin Colloms has an excellent reputation as an engineer, a reviewer, and someone who takes measurements. It's just hard for me to believe that he didn't have access to the inside story on what components went into the GH speakers. He went into great detail about all the wood and the hand polishing that went into the GHs including the types of wood. Did he get that wrong too? If he didn't get all of that info straight from the horse's mouth, I'm surprised.

 

[Bill Hart]

What's the relationship, if any, among Skanning, Scan-Tech and Scanspeak?
I found this interesting: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1262216844&openfrom&7&4#7

 

[TBone]

Davey, nice post ...

1st, I have no experience with your specific speakers so I certainly won't quote some reviewer who probably has MUCH less experience with said equipment than the long time owner. That would be extremely presumptuous, wouldn't it (notice no question mark)

Davey, if you don't mind me asking, how "small" is your room, and therefore do you listen in the "near-field". I've recently moved from a relatively small dedicated listening room to a much bigger non-dedicated living room with HT system intertwined ... a learning experience & project upon itself.

tb1

 

[mep]

Mark, are the LS50's plus subs your main listening system now?

For the here and now, yes sir they are and I continue to be amazed at what they can do in my room with my gear.

 

[TBone]

Mep, one of these days you will learn to be a little less argumentative...No???

LOL, very "diplomatic" response ...

 

[mep]

What's the relationship, if any, among Skanning, Scan-Tech and Scanspeak?
I found this interesting: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?cspkr&1262216844&openfrom&7&4#7

Does that mean in 2010 Davey thought the tweeters were Esotar just like MC said in 1992?