The Meta sounds clearly better in every way. If you listen to Jazz or Classical the Meta is worth the extra money. Budget amps/speakers are good enough (or even superior) for poorly recorded music, but for better recordings you need better equipment. The point of diminishing returns depends on a lot of factors, the music you listen to is an important one.
The Meta sounds this and that... I don't care for me the Q 150's are my favourite. Their laid back nature and the highs which by comparison seem much easier on the ear are the most important factors. What's more i think i couldn't live with the Metas on a daily basis. Just too tiring form my taste. I mean it might be exciting on your first listening minutes or maybe on a short comparison like this, but remember that you have to live with them and be able to play all sorts of music.
Have you heard LS50s in person? My only experience with hifi so far is my new CXA81 and KEF q350s (Unless Sonos’ flagships qualify as hifi) I’m loving the sound of q350s with this amp ..Though I am considering returning them for metas for even more refined and controlled sound. I just hope they blend as well with my SVS Sb-1000 pro sub .. the metas don’t go down as low, so the sub would have to cover more range.
The Meta is simply too sophisticated for the pretty little Q150. These comparisons are great. Any chance of comparing a Kef Q150 (or Elac B6.2) against the reviewer's favourite, the Triangle Borea BR03?
Do you think LS50 Meta are a great pairing with CXA81, or would you recommend another amp in its price range? If I end up keeping this amp, I’d like to get the best sound I can get out of it, so I’m considering returning my q350s for the Metas. also, Did you try a sub with this setup and did it blend well? I’ll probably either get a second svs sb-1000 Pro or eventually sell it and get a KEF KC62 …though maybe I’d be better off getting Ls50 wireless for better dsp/bass management. My only concern is with longevity of actives - I still have passives from 20+ years ago that work great but I wonder what the lifespan would be on actives.
The Meta has a fuller and more open midrange, but the difference isn't as great as I thought it would be, since the Q150 sounded very recessed in the midrange in the multi-speaker comparison you recently did. This just shows how much the recording used influences the sound too. The Q150 does very well here, considering that it costs less than half what the Meta does. Now I'd like to hear how well the Q150 does with the AXA25 and 35, as well as the NAD 328 and 338, and the low priced Sony and Yamaha receivers too
@@thomasward00 That's BS. It really depends on the size of your room, the volume levels you listen at, and lots of other factors too. You can't just make a blanket statement like that as fact, because it's only your opinion, and many people wouldn't agree with you
@@DougMen1 Room size of course would require more power and or larger speakers but my statement still stands about equip price, modest priced equip is better than ever in sound quality
@@thomasward00 I agree, and as great as the KEF Q series, the Wharfedale Diamonds, and others in that price range are, they can't begin to compare to something like the MA Gold 100, and others at that price level, which take sound quality to a whole new level compared to speakers under $1k
@@DougMen1 I'm about to buy an Arcam SA10 for $799,. That's the most that I will spend on an amp for a small or medium room. Of course if I needed more power for a larger space I would increase budget for more power. Just as my top budget for bookshelves is 1K a pair, towers I would double that to 2K.
![[Sound Battle] KEF LS50 Meta vs KEF Q150 Bookshelf Speakers w/Arcam SA10 Integrated Amp](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/MTKaSMwzOs4/mqdefault.jpg)
The Q150 is just right at the inflection point of my own personal cost-benefit curve for sound quality. Paired with a sub, I love my Q150.
Kef 150 is excellent for long listening as the sound is lovely and easy on ear 😊
The side-by-side switch is really revealing. Both speakers sound great, thanks for the comparison.
The Meta sounds clearly better in every way. If you listen to Jazz or Classical the Meta is worth the extra money. Budget amps/speakers are good enough (or even superior) for poorly recorded music, but for better recordings you need better equipment. The point of diminishing returns depends on a lot of factors, the music you listen to is an important one.
The Meta sounds this and that... I don't care for me the Q 150's are my favourite. Their laid back nature and the highs which by comparison seem much easier on the ear are the most important factors. What's more i think i couldn't live with the Metas on a daily basis. Just too tiring form my taste. I mean it might be exciting on your first listening minutes or maybe on a short comparison like this, but remember that you have to live with them and be able to play all sorts of music.
Have you heard LS50s in person? My only experience with hifi so far is my new CXA81 and KEF q350s (Unless Sonos’ flagships qualify as hifi)
I’m loving the sound of q350s with this amp ..Though I am considering returning them for metas for even more refined and controlled sound. I just hope they blend as well with my SVS Sb-1000 pro sub .. the metas don’t go down as low, so the sub would have to cover more range.
The Meta is simply too sophisticated for the pretty little Q150. These comparisons are great. Any chance of comparing a Kef Q150 (or Elac B6.2) against the reviewer's favourite, the Triangle Borea BR03?
thanks, noted
Do you think LS50 Meta are a great pairing with CXA81, or would you recommend another amp in its price range?
If I end up keeping this amp, I’d like to get the best sound I can get out of it, so I’m considering returning my q350s for the Metas.
also, Did you try a sub with this setup and did it blend well? I’ll probably either get a second svs sb-1000 Pro or eventually sell it and get a KEF KC62 …though maybe I’d be better off getting Ls50 wireless for better dsp/bass management. My only concern is with longevity of actives - I still have passives from 20+ years ago that work great but I wonder what the lifespan would be on actives.
The Meta has a fuller and more open midrange, but the difference isn't as great as I thought it would be, since the Q150 sounded very recessed in the midrange in the multi-speaker comparison you recently did. This just shows how much the recording used influences the sound too. The Q150 does very well here, considering that it costs less than half what the Meta does. Now I'd like to hear how well the Q150 does with the AXA25 and 35, as well as the NAD 328 and 338, and the low priced Sony and Yamaha receivers too
There really isn't a reason to go above $1k for a pair of bookshelves now... The diminishing returns kicks in about $750
@@thomasward00 That's BS. It really depends on the size of your room, the volume levels you listen at, and lots of other factors too. You can't just make a blanket statement like that as fact, because it's only your opinion, and many people wouldn't agree with you
@@DougMen1 Room size of course would require more power and or larger speakers but my statement still stands about equip price, modest priced equip is better than ever in sound quality
@@thomasward00 I agree, and as great as the KEF Q series, the Wharfedale Diamonds, and others in that price range are, they can't begin to compare to something like the MA Gold 100, and others at that price level, which take sound quality to a whole new level compared to speakers under $1k
@@DougMen1 I'm about to buy an Arcam SA10 for $799,. That's the most that I will spend on an amp for a small or medium room. Of course if I needed more power for a larger space I would increase budget for more power. Just as my top budget for bookshelves is 1K a pair, towers I would double that to 2K.