KEF Blade 2 Meta review by Erin's Audio Corner

[MattHooper]

Perhaps, it's the subjectivism, the hyperbole, the click baiting, the every opportunity I can find to monetize, I will and a public video of bad mouthing Amir that opens the wound of this:

I was responding to a specific criticism made of his KEF Blade review.

Let it go @MattHooper. I'm a fanboy of Erin's work, but I can also understand why he is controversial and certainly not a fan of everything he does.

With due respect, no need to tell anyone to "let it go." We can all decide for ourselves whether we have something to say. (And I've made far fewer posts in this thread than you have).

Whether anyone isn't a fan of every thing Erin does is beside the point. I was speaking to a specific criticism made by Amir...and which some others have made...that I find to be poorly justified, by my lights. We all have opinions.

 

[Axo1989]

Had Erin heard that speaker (I don't know but it's not one of his published reviews - recall again that his claim is not "best" but "best he's heard") that would be a very good rejoinder, The big Genelec is effectively the same kind of "single apparent source" as Blade. Also it is less flawed in industrial design than the KEF - the woofers are effectively protected by the waveguide, and even though the coax has a naked midrange cone the tweeter has a full grille and the mid is made from more dent-resistant materials than KEF's. I assume with factory custom paint for speaker and stand 8361 would still be significantly less expensive. Personally in the blind I'd expect the Genelec to perform better, with GLM being the decisive factor.

However, the main thing your comment makes me think is, now I hope someone sends Erin an 8361 while he still has the KEF Blade* that would be an interesting comparison to run on using his newest toy, an ABX comparator.

*There's been a lot of ill-informed jawing about Erin gushing with the motive of getting KEF to give them to him for free or at a reduced price. Let's be real here. He has enough of a track record and contacts list that most audio companies probably would sell him a given product on the most permissive industry accomodation terms they offer for that product, whether it's dealer pricing or whatever. Those types of discounts generally aren't held as close to the vest as people who have never published a review may imagine.

Yes I've interpreted his comments on Blade in the context of him not testing and I assume not comprehensively listening to 8361 (and some other speakers that may compete for "better/best").

 

[CleanSound]

Do you react to that as "objectionable" "pathetic and juvenile" but not object to ASR asking for a donation (at the end of speaker reviews, for example)? I don't see either method as especially problematic.

I'm glad you asked. So let me triple down by telling you the obvious difference.

ASR does not monetize ANYTHING, it is a member funded non-for-profit and serves the benefit of its members and the public. Like NPR and Wikipedia, except ASR doesn't host these annoying fundraising campaigns every 4 months.

vs.

Erin attempts to monetize every opportunity he sees and all net profit/proceed goes into the pocket of Erin, which I have zero issues with. In fact, it's an honest living and I have defended him in doing so is the past. However that does makes Erin a business.

What business have made a capital investment and asked their customers and non-customers alike to help cover the cost of such capital investment outside of buying their product/services? Pathetic and juvenile.

Erin could of just increase his Patreon cost and let free market do it's, that would of been fine. He could also ask manufacturers who wants to send him products to review to pay a standard measurement fee or any creative ways to recoup the cost of the capital investment. But to set up a goFundMe and ask for donations by telling others how long it will take him to recoup the NFS cost? Pathetic and juvenile.

 

[CleanSound]

With due respect, no need to tell anyone to "let it go." We can all decide for ourselves whether we have something to say. (And I've made far fewer posts in this thread than you have).

Whether anyone isn't a fan of every thing Erin does is beside the point. I was speaking to a specific criticism made by Amir...and which some others have made...that I find to be poorly justified, by my lights. We all have opinions.

Well, I wasn't counting who posted more.

But yes, opine with your opinion like I have.

 

[ernestcarl]

But to set up a goFundMe and ask for donations by telling others how long it will take him to recoup the NFS cost? Pathetic and juvenile.

I don’t particularly have any strong viewpoint whether his approach is right or wrong.

At this point you are beginning to sound like a broken record on continuous replay, though.

 

[CleanSound]

I don’t particularly have any strong viewpoint whether his approach is right or wrong.

At this point you are beginning to sound like a broken record on continuous replay, though.

No I'm not, because I'm answering others who continues to ask me about my comment.

 

[ernestcarl]

No I'm not, because I'm answering others who continues to ask me about my comment.

Then continue on…

 

[MattHooper]

Well, I wasn't counting who posted more.

But yes, opine with your opinion like I have.

To be clear, if someone is so allergic to subjective portions of a review that it "ruins" a review for them, I guess, hey, we all have our tolerances so as an expression of an opinion fair enough. Personally I find it odd, but that's my opinion. I dislike some youtube reviewers presentation enough that it "ruins" the reviews for me, even if not for others.

But insofar as such opinions are put forth as something more, like it's some fact Erin's review was made poorer or ruined by the inclusion of Erin's subjective portion, then I would push back on that claim for the reasons I've given.

Cheers.

 

[CleanSound]

Then continue on…

Only when another person inquires about the merit of my comment

 

[Axo1989]

I'm glad you asked. So let me triple down by telling you the obvious difference.

ASR does not monetize ANYTHING, it is a member funded non-for-profit and serves the benefit of its members and the public. Like NPR and Wikipedia, except ASR doesn't host these annoying fundraising campaigns every 4 months.

vs.

Erin attempts to monetize every opportunity he sees and all net profit/proceed goes into the pocket of Erin, which I have zero issues with. In fact, it's an honest living and I have defended him in doing so is the past. However that does makes Erin a business.

What business have made a capital investment and asked their customers and non-customers alike to help cover the cost of such capital investment outside of buying their product/services? Pathetic and juvenile.

Erin could of just increase his Patreon cost and let free market do it's, that would of been fine. He could also ask manufacturers who wants to send him products to review to pay a standard measurement fee or any creative ways to recoup the cost of the capital investment. But to set up a goFundMe and ask for donations by telling others how long it will take him to recoup the NFS cost? Pathetic and juvenile.

So the key difference is less member participation on Erin's site? Both purchased Klippel robots, both undertake similar speaker measurement activities, both ask for money in various ways. ASR does it not every few months but at the end of reviews. I don't think the non-profit organisation argument is especially robust in the specific sense of rendering fund-raising by one and not the other "objectionable".

As for "pathetic and juvenile" both our host and Erin have personality quirks and communication style peccadillos, but I'm not going to be ungracious here (or there) about either. I may post a counter-argument to something or other, but hopefully substantive not an attack on personal style or circumstances (except maybe inadvertently).

Honestly thinking about arguments like "the epitome of the entitled and handout mentally of this new generation" coming from boomers perhaps languishing in their appreciating residential assets and calling millennials entitled is just a tragic gas-lighting joke. Anyway, I expect we aren't going to agree, so I'll likely leave it there.

 

[goat76]

It's just typical YouTube hype, from a YouTube guy.

It'll all be forgotten when the next best thing comes along. Desperately trying to get a free (or heavily subsidised) pair of KEF Blade2 metas. Yawn.

The things you write here seem a bit contradictive. On one hand, you insinuate that Erin is just hyping the review up by saying it's the best speaker he ever heard, but on the other hand, you say he is likely doing that to get the chance to buy these speakers at a reduced price.
But if he truly buys them for his own use, wouldn't that indicate that these speakers are indeed the best speaker he has ever heard. If so, was it just “a hype” then?

 

[CleanSound]

So the key difference is less member participation on Erin's site? Both purchased Klippel robots, both undertake similar speaker measurement activities, both ask for money in various ways. ASR does it not every few months but at the end of reviews. I don't think the non-profit organisation argument is especially robust in the specific sense of rendering fund-raising by one and not the other "objectionable".

Huh? What?

If Erin's reviews are non-for-profit, then I'm all for that goFundMe for the NFS. But we already know it is not hence it is a capital investment for his business, granted he is still probably in the hole with that NFS purchase.

Honestly, boomers languishing in their appreciating residential assets and calling millennials entitled is just a tragic gas-lighting joke. Anyway, I expect we aren't going to agree, so I'll likely leave it there.

Ahh. . .I see why you are defending such move.

Sorry about the housing situation, I do wish it gets better for your sake and for the sake my kids when it's time for them to buy.

 

[MattHooper]

The things you write here seem a bit contradictive. On one hand, you insinuate that Erin is just hyping the review up by saying it's the best speaker he ever heard, but on the other hand, you say he is likely doing that to get the chance to buy these speakers at a reduced price.
But if he truly buys them for his own use, wouldn't that indicate that these speakers are indeed the best speaker he has ever heard. If so, was it just “a hype” then?

That reminds me of the puzzling accusation I've often seen about reviewers, like "he is just writing such a positive review so he can get the speakers at a good deal from the manufacturer." But....why would the review want the speaker so much if he didn't think it was terrific in the first place?

 

[Descartes]

So much arguing, personally I look at the data from multiple measurements and reviews and then go listen for myself before purchasing any speakers or electronics!

 

[holdingpants01]

I'm glad you asked. So let me triple down by telling you the obvious difference.

ASR does not monetize ANYTHING, it is a member funded non-for-profit and serves the benefit of its members and the public. Like NPR and Wikipedia, except ASR doesn't host these annoying fundraising campaigns every 4 months.

vs.

Erin attempts to monetize every opportunity he sees and all net profit/proceed goes into the pocket of Erin, which I have zero issues with. In fact, it's an honest living and I have defended him in doing so is the past. However that does makes Erin a business.

the fact is I watch and read both, but I never clicked on affiliate link or bought from or donated to Erin, but I did to ASR. Their techniques are different but in my case ASR was more effective in getting my money. Not that I complain, just state the fact

 

[IAtaman]

The fact that you bring this up shows that you do have concerns there. Do you want me to bash you for daring to say that?

I do not have any concerns regarding objectivity of Sean Olive. On the contrary, I brought him up because I thought no one would.

The fact that I bring it up does NOT show that I have concerns. And this is exactly the problem with your argumentation: you don't know anything about me, or what my concerns or intentions are, because I have not told you, yet you think you know, and you are passing on judgement. Same thing is being done to Erin, by you, and other members. That is an inappropriate way of conducting a discussion. You got concerns about his review, you say them. You leave what you think his motivations and intentions are out of it - that is the proper code of conduct in my view.

 

[IAtaman]

What business have made a capital investment and asked their customers and non-customers alike to help cover the cost of such capital investment outside of buying their product/services? Pathetic and juvenile.

Erin could of just increase his Patreon cost and let free market do it's, that would of been fine. He could also ask manufacturers who wants to send him products to review to pay a standard measurement fee or any creative ways to recoup the cost of the capital investment. But to set up a goFundMe and ask for donations by telling others how long it will take him to recoup the NFS cost? Pathetic and juvenile.

I find it interesting that you dont have any problem Erin running a business, but seem to think his review does not have merit because he asked people to help pay for NFS costs instead of raising his patreon prices. That sounds like a business management critique, not an audio related one.

a public video of bad mouthing Amir that opens the wound of this:

A public video of Erin bad mouthing Amir? Do you have a link?

 

[AudioJester]

I find it interesting that you dont have any problem Erin running a business, but seem to think his review does not have merit because he asked people to help pay for NFS costs instead of raising his patreon prices. That sounds like a business management critique, not an audio related one.


A public video of Erin bad mouthing Amir? Do you have a link?

It was a very sad time.
Thankfully the video was removed.

 

[napilopez]

I think it needs to be said that there's no such thing as objectivity except for what's in the data itself. Any way you choose to curate, present, or interpret that data creates adds subjectivity.

I think some people here have this fantasy that making comments only on the data only would be objective, or even just significantly more objective than having subjective and objective measurements side by side, to which I raise an eyebrow.

I constantly disagree with people's interpretation of data on this forum and elsewhere. I rather frequently notice inconsistencies in data interpretation from different reviewers who do measurements. I disagreed with Erin's interpretation of the data for the L52s I sent in, before I knew what he thought of the sound or I'd heard it myself (he lives closer to me, don't come at me).

Heck, I've even disagreed with my own analysis of data after reading more research or comparing with other speakers, and I'm sure I've been inconsistent too.

That's why you see me constantly importing data directly into REW, tracing graphs with VituixCAD, matching the scaling of graphs, and making 1-to-1 data comparisons when posting here. It's not just for proving a point -- it's for checking my own claims. And I'm still wrong sometimes.

So to me taking issue with someone gushing about a speaker that has good measurements is silly. The data is there and you are free to interpret that to the best of your abilities.

As for how positive or gushing someone is about a speaker... honestly, who cares, as long as they give you enough information to make your own judgement? Even outside of audio, every critic is operating on their own scale, and readers calibrate.

Besides, if there's one thing I learned from testing stuff as part of a team and hundreds of reader emails and comments over the years is that someone will buy a product no matter how terribad. More often than not, the worst damage you can do to a product is to not mention it. So to me reviews were always more about "who is this for?" rather than "is this good or bad."

Edit: One last point. No matter how objective one tries to be, someone will accuse you of being either a shill or having insufficient knowledge anyway. So it's sad that these arguments are happening over the two audio reviewers who are currently putting out the most high quality objective data on speakers on the entire planet earth.

 

[Koeitje]

The people complaining about Erin's subjective opinions are being ridiculous. He provides extremely clear caveats about the limits and unreliability of subjectivity and provides a warning that if you don't care, you can skip ahead to the objective measurements. I thought it was a thoroughly professional review; if you don't care about his opinion he provided the measurements for you to make your own opinion.

His subjective part is different from how Amir does it. Amir measures first, listens second, Erin listens firsts and measures second. I prefer Erin's approach. But in practice it doesn't matter that much. The most things I can't get from the spin I get from both their subjective approaches, as mainly deal with bass extension (and the distortion there) and SPL limits.