20-Jan-2021, 09:52
(19-Jan-2021, 23:59)JDtheJD Wrote: I think the answer to your question depends on which you prefer more, i.e. full extended range with a seemingly less detailed sound stage in light of the price difference. All very subjective factors.
I was not aware of LS50s, (if they were even available) when I got the golds, but the golds gave me what I think will be a lifelong memory while listening to the Dave Brubeck’s Quartet’s Take Five. I was working in the kitchen when I turned up the volume to a reasonable, but not loud, level. After a about 5 seconds of play, my four year old son who was playing in his bedroom came sprinting out and stood mesmerized between the speakers. I asked if he was ok and he just softly said yes and after a few more seconds he asked “what’s this?” I gave him a way too specific response but fortunately it didn’t lessen his enjoyment. Would the same thing have happened with the LS50s? Maybe, but given the price difference I like to think not. . To the extent I am right, I suspect my son’s interests was the result of the full and palpable range the golds offer.
The full extended range could be reached by LS50W2 with a additional sub (even more with Kef KF92) at same price than Gold's.
So the question remains is the SQ? I fear that the Gold sounds digital, clear/bright message while the Kef W renders smoother/warmer (less than the passive meta i guess). But i did not compare A/B both.
I don't want to get auditive fatigue to listen to acoustic music/piano jazz ambiance/warm voices... I am not looking for the maximum details of the sound but a charming plain sound with good bass for HC use.
So you can advise me to go with passive solution but i can make compromises to get more pratical use of listening music that offers an all-in-one active system.
