I use EQ to make them more neutral so I wasn’t expecting the meta to be much better but they do have better directivity and therefore are better to EQ. I’ve had the original LS50 for a couple years now and have wanted to compare them to the Meta ever since they were released.
Despite the slightly different bass response in the Soundstage measurements, my in-room response was identical between the 2 and either pair greatly benefits from subs offloading the bass under 100Hz or so.
#Ls50 meta vs ls50 upgrade#
I will say to anyone who doesn’t have the ability to apply PEQ filters, the Meta are amazing as is and definitely worth the upgrade over the original LS50, assuming you don’t like the extra energy in the 2-4k region. I tried convincing myself to keep the Meta but I really like the look of the black edition LS50 so that and the PITA of selling mine was enough to send the Meta back. I feel like both versions of the LS50 are sculpted to be generally neutral but they play tricks on you to sound more detailed in the highs, the Meta do a better job of this because they achieve it without being fatiguing over time.Įither way after swapping speaker positions from left to right and back they were basically indistinguishable to my ears. I think the slight dip in the 2-3k region combined with a slight rise from 4k and up made them sound very clear but also crisp in the highs. Once I applied a high shelf to lower the output of the meta by 1db from 4k and up that went away and they were basically identical.
I went back and forth, initially I felt they were very similar but the meta just sounded more clear but I found out that was just a trick with how the meta were voiced. This wasn’t an easy comparison obviously since they are now almost the same speaker but I did hear some differences.
You can see that after EQ they are very similar but because the LS50 have an off-axis dip around 4k I was wondering if the Metas would have better highs despite the near identical listening window response.
0 kommentar(er)
