I have had plenty of class D amps, some quite expensive - Devialet, Parasound, NAD to name a few. They never sound as smooth, lush, natural and musical as the class A monsters. I have never enjoyed a class D and it is with relief that I am now back to class A, remembering what I have missed all these years. It might be part of your problem.
LS50 on the other hand is a cheap monitor, it looks like a cheap monitor and it performs like a cheap monitor.
The box is not neutral at all and there is a very disturbing resonance, particularly if you come from a good studio monitor. That sound signature might appeal to some but it is not for me.
The bass performance is modest and, unless you use a sub below 70-80Hz, it muddles the midrange. The net effect of a sub is not necessarily bass extension, but clearing up and opening the midrange and treble. And it works effectively - if you are going to keep your setup I suggest a small REL sub (you really want something small and fairly low power for near field) to hear the difference.
What really spoils the LS50 though, because pretty much everything else is fixable, is the cheap metal tweeter. I remember the first Panasonic CD boomboxes in the 80’s - they sounded just like that.
In case people are wondering - I have had both the LS50 and LS50 Wireless for a demo for a week, at home, with my own toys. Tried a lot of stuff, from valves to Devialet and they didn’t deliver the goods for me. I tried Dirac as well which did correct quite effectively much of the box / bass problems but nothing could be done about the tweeter.
In my opinion the Quad Z series are so much better that I have never understood why the LS50 achieved this status. LS50 are supposed to be direct descendants of the cult LS3/5 BBC monitors. But those monitors had a soft dome tweeter and a superb midrange. LS50 has neither.
LS50 on the other hand is a cheap monitor, it looks like a cheap monitor and it performs like a cheap monitor.
The box is not neutral at all and there is a very disturbing resonance, particularly if you come from a good studio monitor. That sound signature might appeal to some but it is not for me.
The bass performance is modest and, unless you use a sub below 70-80Hz, it muddles the midrange. The net effect of a sub is not necessarily bass extension, but clearing up and opening the midrange and treble. And it works effectively - if you are going to keep your setup I suggest a small REL sub (you really want something small and fairly low power for near field) to hear the difference.
What really spoils the LS50 though, because pretty much everything else is fixable, is the cheap metal tweeter. I remember the first Panasonic CD boomboxes in the 80’s - they sounded just like that.
In case people are wondering - I have had both the LS50 and LS50 Wireless for a demo for a week, at home, with my own toys. Tried a lot of stuff, from valves to Devialet and they didn’t deliver the goods for me. I tried Dirac as well which did correct quite effectively much of the box / bass problems but nothing could be done about the tweeter.
In my opinion the Quad Z series are so much better that I have never understood why the LS50 achieved this status. LS50 are supposed to be direct descendants of the cult LS3/5 BBC monitors. But those monitors had a soft dome tweeter and a superb midrange. LS50 has neither.