I finally got the chance to compare my LGK 2.0 to the original model!
Gear:Surface Pro 3
Anticables USB
B24 power cable
PS-Audio Sprout 100 (no bass boost)
16-strand speaker cable
No subs
So how to they compare?
Funnily enough, their size/shape corolates pretty closely to their final sound.
Lets start with the original LGK 1.0.
Fast, clean & articulate, they dont miss anything. The rise in the top end really provides the LGK with great air and spaciousness. Vocals are present, and they hold up really well to layered music. Some elements may sound a bit "bright" up top, but I actually really like it.
That said, they tend to sound a bit "thin" down low..
Tracks like "The flight of the Cosmic Hippo" had great bass texture, but lacked much body. Other songs were also a bit thin in the bass.
Give these guys a small subwoofer to take over the bottom end, and I imagine they will be be just about perfect.
Now onto the 2.0!
Right off the bat, these have a lot more punch and power down low, and can dig a fair bit deeper than the originals. Everything has a lot more body and depth than the original model. Vocals are smooth and rich with a more balanced tone from top to bottom.
"Cosmic Hippo" retains all of the texture of the original LGKs but adds a lot of the depth and power this track calls for. It's still missing some of the very bottom end but has no problem holding it's own without a sub. In a desk set up a sub may almost be unnecessary depending on how much gain there will be from near-wall placement.
Do the LGK 2.0s have a down side? Sure. With the deeper bass extension, the mids and the lower treble can become a bit muddy when pushing the volume higher. They also dont quite have the same level of presence up top. I suspect that it may be part of the reason it appears to lack the same level of presence and spatial precision of the original.
Both speakers will easily disappear without much effort & offer a wide soundstage with solid imaging. The originals offer a little better clarity, focus and separation, but are quite equal in terms of scale/depth.
Both can benefit from a sub, but for different reasons.
The original lacks some of the same body and extension, while the 2.0 the added extension robs it of some clarity and focus.
Rolling both speakers off around ~100Hz to a sub(s) should make for an interesting 2nd round of comparison to see if my suspicions on the new model hold true and if it will improve clarity and separation within the soundstage..
Both are impressive speakers in their own right and I would definitely consider the 2.0 a solid successor to the original model.
Cheers!
