Pre-Meta KEF Reference 1 or LS50 Meta

Hands down Reference 1. No contest. 

I have the LS50’s and was just wondering this myself. Following with interest. 

The LS50 Meta + KC62 sub is what I decoded to keep vs the similarly priced used Reference 1.  The Meta was a very noticeable improvement over the older LS50. A lot of people say otherwise, but I hear a much better speaker in the Meta over the non-Meta. I figured adding the KC62 maybe a better speaker than the old Reference 1, since it lacks the Meta material.

I have my LS50 Meta on the sidelines for the past 2 months since I put in the Magenpan LRS+ ($995) with the KEF KC62 sub. Both are great in my small office. They sound different and I will alternate.

I use LS50 Wireless II and a pair of KC62 in the living room, with eARC from a TV and coax from an Oppo 205.  I stored a pair of LS50 Metas after being impressed with them when driven by an Ayre A7X integrated, because I wanted to declutter the Roon setup in the living room so chose the wireless speakers that accept Roon.

I think I'll try the LS50 Metas in place of the Reference 1s.  They will be driven by an Ayre VX-5 Twenty amp, augmented by pair of Velodyne HGS-15s with acoustic room room correction, and high-passed at 80 Hz by a passive balanced Marchand filter.  IIRC, KEF recommends a 45 Hz crossover to subs and a 75 Hz high-pass.  It's easy to set LF with the SMS-1 bass manager, but high-pass is fixed at 80 Hz. 

Whatever the Meta material is, it's not magical. The Ref 1 is in an entirely different league. With or without meta material. 

The KEF KC62 with the LS50 Meta plays deeper than the Reference 1. Not sure about sonics being in a different league. I have heard both and own the LS50 Meta and sub. My gear at home is likely better (for my ears) than the gear I heard with the Reference 1.

My assumption is that the Meta material is doing the same thing as the tube in the Yamaha NS5000 and the tubes in Vivid speakers.

Yes, monitor speakers with a sub will play deeper than monitor speakers without a sub. Does adding a sub make lesser speakers sound better? Debatable. 

Lethargy is likely to win out and the Reference 1s will stay in place until I replace everything except the Ayre disc player and subs with LS60.

I would say stay with the R1s and adjust from there. I moved to LS50 Metas and they are great but they really needed some power and also a KC62 sub with a ~90hz crossover. In the end the biggest factor has been room placement and tuning. With the sub it allows me to pull them 3.5ft from the back and side walls. My amp also does not have to work too hard with the 84db efficiency given that all the bass is directed to the KC62 sub. My next step is more room tuning and the potential of adding another KC62 sub into the mix. For main monitors the R1s should still be great.

I watched an interview with Jack Oclee-Brown last night during which he was asked what his favorite speaker is. His answer was the KEF Reference 1. He favors stand-mounted speakers with subwoofer augmentation. He recommends zero toe-in to maximize reflexion off side walls. Since I replaced a 100" projection screen with an 85" TV, I’ll move the Reference 1s to the edge of the TV, reducing separation about 14," eliminate toe-in, and do lots of listening. I mostly listen to baroque, classical, and jazz.

I thought the drivers in the Reference line were a couple steps above the ls50? 

Why would anyone want to maximize reflection?

What we actually hear is the result of many reflections, but we don't want a particular reflection to dominate.  I moved the Reference 1s closer together and eliminated toe-in.  It's been a long while since I've heard them sound so good given the many less than optimal changes I've made to their setup over the years.So I'm sticking with a rack of Ayre gear, a pair of Reference 1s, and a pair of Velodyne HGS-15s. for stereo.  This setup is augmented by a Bryston SP3 processor and four LS50s for surround.  I may or may not use the KEF Reference 204/2C -- I don't perceive the need for a center channel.

Of the three the best sounding one to my ears is the Pre Meta LS50 (which I owned).

The reason I liked them so much is the voicing, or frequency response they were given.

The Meta version of the LS50s are voiced differently and are more subdued and rolled off, as are the REF 1 which have a similar response curve of a tilted straight line. Driver material was not the only change they made to the original LS50s.

The Meta sound drier with less musical life as do the REF 1 IMHO.

The pre-Meta LS50 had a voicing similar to the Joseph Audio Pulsars which are magical sounding. A bit bright and airy with nice presence.

The originals are gems.

The KEF REF series entire line continue to be a disappointment for me given their artificial, metallic sound and extreme cost.

With your amplifier in particular, the original LS50 would sound the best.  

Some people are sensitive to stridency of metal cones, most others not as much (which I surmise based upon volume sales and positive reviews).