Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Phantom and LS50 Wireless
#1
I posted some impressions in the speaker forum on findings between my phantom silvers and newly acquired kef ls50 wireless.
as the kefs are not fully broken in yet I will not go into too much detail.

the reson I post a thread here, is that I just discovered that I can use my Astell & Kern 120 II to stream to the Kef directly and wirelessly. While I cant stream DSD due to DAC limitations in the KEF, I can stream FLAC 192/24 without issues...however, requiring most of the bandwith of my router.

as mentioned in the other thread, the kef are far superior in the midrange, midbass and treble region. the bass itself is more textured with more insight into instrument layers.

I do love my phantom silvers for electronic music with the thumping bass, but for all else the Kef are worthwile an audition for any fan of good quality sound.

I enjoy both very much for what they do but for audiophile ambitions it is the kef hands down.
Reply
#2
(03-Feb-2017, 10:22)intouch1 Wrote: I posted some impressions in the speaker forum on findings between my phantom silvers and newly acquired kef ls50 wireless.
as the kefs are not fully broken in yet I will not go into too much detail.

the reson I post a thread here, is that I just discovered that I can use my Astell & Kern 120 II to stream to the Kef directly and wirelessly. While I cant stream DSD due to DAC limitations in the KEF, I can stream FLAC 192/24 without issues...however, requiring most of the bandwith of my router.

as mentioned in the other thread, the kef are far superior in the midrange, midbass and treble region. the bass itself is more textured with more insight into instrument layers.

I do love my phantom silvers for electronic music with the thumping bass, but for all else the Kef are worthwile an audition for any fan of good quality sound.

I enjoy both very much for what they do but for audiophile ambitions it is the kef hands down.

I have the Golds, and was fortunate enough to have a pair of the KEF LS50 wireless speakers for a week so i was able to do a very thorough comparison, IMHO the KEF are nowhere near as good as the Phantom Golds I know the Phantoms are twice the price, but are also twice as good and much more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, especially when on the tree stands.
Reply
#3
(03-Feb-2017, 23:04)robbla Wrote:
(03-Feb-2017, 10:22)intouch1 Wrote: I posted some impressions in the speaker forum on findings between my phantom silvers and newly acquired kef ls50 wireless.
as the kefs are not fully broken in yet I will not go into too much detail.

the reson I post a thread here, is that I just discovered that I can use my Astell & Kern 120 II to stream to the Kef directly and wirelessly. While I cant stream DSD due to DAC limitations in the KEF, I can stream FLAC 192/24 without issues...however, requiring most of the bandwith of my router.

as mentioned in the other thread, the kef are far superior in the midrange, midbass and treble region. the bass itself is more textured with more insight into instrument layers.

I do love my phantom silvers for electronic music with the thumping bass, but for all else the Kef are worthwile an audition for any fan of good quality sound.

I enjoy both very much for what they do but for audiophile ambitions it is the kef hands down.

I have the Golds, and was fortunate enough to have a pair of the KEF LS50 wireless speakers for a week so i was able to do a very thorough comparison, IMHO the KEF are nowhere near as good as the Phantom Golds I know the Phantoms are twice the price, but are also twice as good and much more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, especially when on the tree stands.

i have not had a chance to hear the golds so far. and from what I have read they are supposed to be superior to the silvers in mid and treble region.
I am surprised you were not happy with the Kef, as I find the midbass and mids and treble very open and sweet sounding. much more revealing than my silvers.

on electronic music the phantoms are great.
Reply
#4
I believe you are both right.

I have NOT heard a KEF LS50 wireless but had owned the LS50 for a fair bit.

I would have guessed that the LS50 would be better than the Silver in mids and trebles, but that the Gold would be better overall than the LS50. The Golds are substantially better than the Silver to my years though both pairs playing together to provide a bipole effect is still very fantastic - golds pointing forward for the main sound.

I would love to hear the LS50 wireless however just to see how far they have progressed for a pair of actives.

The LS50 does have subwoofer out which would be interesting to incorporate if you need the Phantom bass.
Reply
#5
(03-Feb-2017, 10:22)intouch1 Wrote: I posted some impressions in the speaker forum on findings between my phantom silvers and newly acquired kef ls50 wireless.
as the kefs are not fully broken in yet I will not go into too much detail.

the reson I post a thread here, is that I just discovered that I can use my Astell & Kern 120 II to stream to the Kef directly and wirelessly. While I cant stream DSD due to DAC limitations in the KEF, I can stream FLAC 192/24 without issues...however, requiring most of the bandwith of my router.

as mentioned in the other thread, the kef are far superior in the midrange, midbass and treble region. the bass itself is more textured with more insight into instrument layers.

I do love my phantom silvers for electronic music with the thumping bass, but for all else the Kef are worthwile an audition for any fan of good quality sound.

I enjoy both very much for what they do but for audiophile ambitions it is the kef hands down.
Reply
#6
(04-Feb-2017, 09:15)OMountainGuy Wrote: I believe you are both right.

I have NOT heard a KEF LS50 wireless but had owned the LS50 for a fair bit.

I would have guessed that the LS50 would be better than the Silver in mids and trebles, but that the Gold would be better overall than the LS50.  The Golds are substantially better than the Silver to my years though both pairs playing together to provide a bipole effect is still very fantastic - golds pointing forward for the main sound.

I would love to hear the LS50 wireless however just to see how far they have progressed for a pair of actives.

The LS50 does have subwoofer out which would be interesting to incorporate if you need the Phantom bass.

I had the LS50s for about a month, and  compared them with the Spendor LS35a, and the Dynaudio's Excite14 (I had owned the Contours, the Sapphires, and the C4), but the Excites sounded better in my room! Well at this stage, if the LS50(I had the passive) are being compared with  the Devialet phantoms, then  I see no way of even thinking of acquiring them, as if they are comparable with the KEFs on piano, then they are not my ideal choice.
Reply
#7
(06-Feb-2017, 21:08)Mario Wrote:
(04-Feb-2017, 09:15)OMountainGuy Wrote: I believe you are both right.

I have NOT heard a KEF LS50 wireless but had owned the LS50 for a fair bit.

I would have guessed that the LS50 would be better than the Silver in mids and trebles, but that the Gold would be better overall than the LS50.  The Golds are substantially better than the Silver to my years though both pairs playing together to provide a bipole effect is still very fantastic - golds pointing forward for the main sound.

I would love to hear the LS50 wireless however just to see how far they have progressed for a pair of actives.

The LS50 does have subwoofer out which would be interesting to incorporate if you need the Phantom bass.

I had the LS50s for about a month, and  compared them with the Spendor LS35a, and the Dynaudio's Excite14 (I had owned the Contours, the Sapphires, and the C4), but the Excites sounded better in my room! Well at this stage, if the LS50(I had the passive) are being compared with  the Devialet phantoms, then  I see no way of even thinking of acquiring them, as if they are comparable with the KEFs on piano, then they are not my ideal choice.

the LS50 wireless are on another level in the treble and mid and midbass.....piano sounds worlds apart from the phantom.
it has been mentioned elsewhere, that the wireless version of the kef is far superior to the passive ls50 even when driven by capable amplification. this is where the DSP comes into play and has control over the drivers.

someone also mentioned on another forum that he finds the kef superior to the phantom gold. and from my experience with the silver (have not heard the gold) I do believe so.

all I can say is the kef sound audiophile where imo the phantom silver sound midfi....but very impressive at that. and there is a strong difference between sounding impressive and sounding right.

I base my comparisons and opinions on all of the other gear I have which I consider true hi end some of which are Wilson maxx3 driven by halcro dm78 and naim hdx front end and Wilson sasha drivern by audio research reference amps and front end and many other setups.

I am not saying the phantom is bad...just saying that to my ears thekef is superior in sounding acoustically right.
Reply
#8
Just as a caveat, i don't have either speaker, but my impression is that comparing the KEF L50 Wireless should be compared to the Gold, not the Silver and that comparisons to the Silver are not apt.
Reply
#9
(07-Feb-2017, 22:24)bearcatsandor Wrote: Just as a caveat, i don't have either speaker, but my impression is that comparing the KEF L50 Wireless should be compared to the Gold, not the Silver and that comparisons to the Silver are not apt.

When considering the relative cost, surely the most valid comparison would be with a pair of white Phantoms?
1000 Pro - KEF Blade - iFi Zen Stream - Mutec REF10 - MC3+USB - Pro-Ject Signature 12
Reply
#10
(07-Feb-2017, 22:52)Confused Wrote:
(07-Feb-2017, 22:24)bearcatsandor Wrote: Just as a caveat, i don't have either speaker, but my impression is that comparing the KEF L50 Wireless should be compared to the Gold, not the Silver and that comparisons to the Silver are not apt.

When considering the relative cost, surely the most valid comparison would be with a pair of white Phantoms?

Validity is relative to what one is seeking. 

From cost as a consideration, indeed white would be more appropriate.  White extends much lower in the bass so the LS50 would need a pair of subs. 

For those who want the best all in one without additional subs, golds would be a good benchmark.  Just depends on one's criteria.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)