KEF Reference and Blade Meta announced, but where is the R Meta?????

[Crosstalk]

How many threads/posts in different places are you going to write about this? You already got your answer many times.

Yes, everyone says it doesnt make any difference . So I want to know why KEF as a manufacturer chose them this way. Marketing as you guys say, I dont think so. None of them pointed out the power ratings of speakers other than @BrokenEnglishGuy. To me that made more sense than the other answers I got from here. Anyway, it would have been better if I got an answer from the company to know what exactly goes into selection of cables inside the speakers. If it made no difference, Kef could have used the same one in R series and Reference series. @BoredErica you can ignore me if you dont want to see my posts. Also, I asked this question only twice here, and the second time, I only wanted to know it from the company to avoid further discussion.

 

[MaggieRose]

Even with good simulation and engineering, balancing is still a key and tricky aspect. I've said before that I have a lot of respect for Toole and Olive. This is because their work mostly correlates exactly with KEFs historical findings and experience on what makes a good sounding loudspeaker. KEF were involved with a project headed by Søren Bech in the late 1980s that has similar conclusions and instigated the Uni-Q driver. Olive's preference score tells you that the responses in all directions need to be smooth but there's considerable "wiggle room" when you come down to the fine details. With a given set of drivers you can come up with a number of crossovers that score similarly (hopefully high if everything is working well!) but sound subtly different. And when you get down to fine margins, preference is quite a moving target as it depends on music selection, room, speaker position and listener taste. Brightness in particular seems to be an extremely personal judgement and varies a lot from person to person. Smoothness in the power response seems to be absolutely key, more so than other curves in the spin plots. Driver distortion and choice of crossover components and their associated distortion can quickly affect a perceived balance, and this can be hard to get a handle on because it won't show up in the frequency response measurements. Of course we're talking about small margins here, but they become very important for high-end products.

I think that the major thing is to try and keep a sense of perspective. "Neutral" for us also means that a speaker can be used by a wide range of people, in a wide range of rooms and on a wide range of music. We simply can't test a single product in enough scenarios to know if we're close to neutral. Which means that during balancing we rely a lot on comparisons with existing product, using a rooms that we're very familiar with, and feedback on existing products that have been in the market for some time.

With Reference META I wouldn't say there's a very big difference in the balancing target compared to Reference. If you look at the spins you can see that overall things are very similar. David Bosch, who did the crossover design work, spent a lot of time working out an approach for the crossover that complemented the natural characteristics as much as possible. He did a great job and was able to tidy up some areas significantly. This really comes across in the listening experience.

The major change in Blade META and Blade 2 META is the LF/MF crossover. The new Uni-Q allows a gentler crossover with the LF which improves the response at wide horizontal angles. This changes the characteristic in the upper bass a fair bit, making everything sound more immediate.

Jack,

Are you able to share what slope crossovers are utilized in the new meta products? I've always been interested in Vandersteen speakers and the ideas of phase & time coherence. I recall a KEF Youtube video and if I remember correctly, you mentioned the potential of first order cross-overs. I believe there is also a Youtube video from PS audio where their speaker designer also toyed with the idea of first order cross-over networks. I write this as an owner of LS50s; R3s; and I have Ref 1 Metas on order although I'm tempted to go further up the line.

 

[Beave]

At one point in my career, marketing requested that we (engineering) add some fancy connectors to one of our products.

Engineering responded to marketing that those connectors would cost $x.xx more than what we were already using, and would provide no actual benefit.

Marketing responded to engineering that by putting those connectors on that product, they could market it as a higher end model and charge (5 times $x.xx) more because of it.

There's your answer.


(Edit: responding to post #301)

 

[Soniclife]

At one point in my career, marketing requested that we (engineering) add some fancy connectors to one of our products.

Engineering responded to marketing that those connectors would cost $x.xx more than what we were already using, and would provide no actual benefit.

Marketing responded to engineering that by putting those connectors on that product, they could market it as a higher end model and charge (5 times $x.xx) more because of it.

There's your answer.


(Edit: responding to post #301)

And your smart engineer training was complete.

 

[pablolie]

At one point in my career, marketing requested that we (engineering) add some fancy connectors to one of our products.

Engineering responded to marketing that those connectors would cost $x.xx more than what we were already using, and would provide no actual benefit.

Marketing responded to engineering that by putting those connectors on that product, they could market it as a higher end model and charge (5 times $x.xx) more because of it.

There's your answer.


(Edit: responding to post #301)

Exactly.

Let's also not forget marketing ultimately edits and publishes the white papers (often writes them or pays tech writers to do so). There is not a single white paper that isn't written to amplify marketing "product benefits". That's why I smile a little when people bring up KEF's white paper as engineering proof...

 

[JRiggs]

Exactly.

Let's also not forget marketing ultimately edits and publishes the white papers (often writes them or pays tech writers to do so). There is not a single white paper that isn't written to amplify marketing "product benefits". That's why I smile a little when people bring up KEF's white paper as engineering proof...

But doesn’t third party testing pretty much align with KEF’s claims?

 

[KMO]

If it made no difference, Kef could have used the same one in R series and Reference series.

Why go to the effort of using the same one? You are aware one is hand-assembled in the UK in small volume, and the other is mass-produced in China, right?

Why go to the logistic effort of sourcing exactly the same cable, and ensuring that they stay in sync?

Do you think the R series even always uses the same cable? I bet it doesn't...

 

[Mnyb]

Exactly.

Let's also not forget marketing ultimately edits and publishes the white papers (often writes them or pays tech writers to do so). There is not a single white paper that isn't written to amplify marketing "product benefits". That's why I smile a little when people bring up KEF's white paper as engineering proof...

I still like them but reads them with that in mind. They are very good anyway.
They can’t be to heavily edited and actually seems to be correct.

What they don’t do is detailing all of KEF’s research and methods and I suppose KEF engineering don’t publish real science papers on everything to not give away their R&D for free to competition.

 

[KMO]

What they don’t do is detailing all of KEF’s research and methods

What they mercifully also don't do is claim that they acoustically benefit from thicker internal wiring...

But look, the Reference is super-expensive. There's a lot of design and assembly and fancy parts that need to be paid for.

You pay for those parts by ensuring it has an impression of quality and workmanship to go with that price. Things that you (and people admiring your stuff) can SEE the money paid for, not abstract things like engineering (hey, that's already paid for right?), or boring things like the Uni-Q (hey, it's the same generation as the R series - looks just the same).

Making sure the incidental bits like cabinet finish and internal wiring are clearly better than the cheaper models helps customers feel better handing over all that money to pay for the real stuff.

I'm sure KEF could make a "budget" Reference 5 Meta that sounded as good with cheap wiring, Radio Shack connectors and a ****** finish, but it wouldn't get many takers at £17,000. (If they could even save £500 in parts by doing that?). People operating in that price range want visible quality, and no corners cut.

 

[YSC]

Making sure the incidental bits like cabinet finish and internal wiring are clearly better than the cheaper models helps customers feel better handing over all that money to pay for the real stuff.

Exactly, same goes for some sporty handling family cars with spoilers with no actual purpose, RGB in some gaming PCs, earphones with thick silver cables but hair thin internal cables etc. you gained perceived improvements and mental satisfaction, which when spending a good fortune, contributes to a lot of the enjoyment. same even for great expensive as **** restaurants cut and place your steak in a better looking way which didn't improve the taste at all

 

[abdo123]

But doesn’t third party testing pretty much align with KEF’s claims?

It does. I never saw a speaker measuring differently from what they published.

 

[KMO]

There probably is a practical answer on the wiring too - being low enough resistance to conduct the signal isn't the only consideration. If you look at mass produced electronic gizmos, they will use staggeringly thin wiring. Thin enough that you're worried you'll snap some of it when you pull the back off and potentially snag it. Just a few tiny strands of copper in each wire.

I don't envy the people who have to assemble and solder that.

Thicker wiring is quite likely easier to handle during assembly. When producing high enough volume at low price you need it to be as thin as possible for cost reasons. In the Reference, that's not the case.

So for the R series I expect the wire was at or close to the bottom end of what performance required, and anything thinner would have a measurable performance impact. And they would have had to do the calculations to figure that out.

For the Reference series, they just didn't bother, they chose something that was obviously comfortably good enough so they didn't have to worry about figuring out the specifications or calculating anything... Wire is boring! They had more important things to calculate.

So, if you like, the R series is cost-optimised. The Reference was "whatever, put something good in".

 

[Crosstalk]

What they mercifully also don't do is claim that they acoustically benefit from thicker internal wiring...

But look, the Reference is super-expensive. There's a lot of design and assembly and fancy parts that need to be paid for.

You pay for those parts by ensuring it has an impression of quality and workmanship to go with that price. Things that you (and people admiring your stuff) can SEE the money paid for, not abstract things like engineering (hey, that's already paid for right?), or boring things like the Uni-Q (hey, it's the same generation as the R series - looks just the same).

Making sure the incidental bits like cabinet finish and internal wiring are clearly better than the cheaper models helps customers feel better handing over all that money to pay for the real stuff.

I'm sure KEF could make a "budget" Reference 5 Meta that sounded as good with cheap wiring, Radio Shack connectors and a ****** finish, but it wouldn't get many takers at £17,000. (If they could even save £500 in parts by doing that?). People operating in that price range want visible quality, and no corners cut.

I appreciate the enthusiasm in everyone trying to cover KEF, but I think I was wrong all along, on a closer look what appears to be the thick wire was a thicker insulation on the cable on the References, and the real cable itself isnt not that much different, its different but not anywhere close to some so called fancy "audiofool" cables. Double cable may handle more power -understandable.

 

[KMO]

Is that even "double wiring", or just the woofers being ganged together? (One wire "in", one wire "out" to next woofer).

 

[YSC]

I appreciate the enthusiasm in everyone trying to cover KEF, but I think I was wrong all along, on a closer look what appears to be the thick wire was a thicker insulation on the cable on the References, and the real cable itself isnt not that much different, its different but not anywhere close to some so called fancy "audiofool" cables. Double cable may handle more power -understandable.

View attachment 190014View attachment 190015View attachment 190016View attachment 190017View attachment 190018

I don't agree that a lot here is to cover KEF.. Come on, what they've done have nothing to do with me as I didn't own any KEF or planned to do so in foreseeable future since I got the X300A a lot of years ago... I believe most are just based on our knowledge and try give you the answer as of why the wires are thicker (or apparently thicker) in the Reference.

In previous tests here it have been shown multiple times (IIRC) that cable thickness or material don't make a difference, unless you have a cable having resistance or capacitance differs so much that it affects signal transfer, or the shielding is so poor that it picks up every radio noise out there. premium, very thick silver cable behaves just as the stock thin copper cable. in this photo it seems that it's a extra cable braid/shield binding two wires into the same end of the driver, possibly for bi-wiring purpose.

 

[Jukebox]

@jackocleebrown Can you explain why KEF Reference series speakers have a different internal cabling than the R series? Do these cables contribute anything to the sound?

Most likely they don't add anything to the sound, but whenever you pay premium one would expect all the internal components to be better than the inferior series.

 

[steve59]

When I opened up my r105/3's the wires appeared to be a different gauge for each driver, very fine wires coming from the tweeter getting thicker as the drivers got larger.

 

[pierre]

What they mercifully also don't do is claim that they acoustically benefit from thicker internal wiring...

But look, the Reference is super-expensive. There's a lot of design and assembly and fancy parts that need to be paid for.

You pay for those parts by ensuring it has an impression of quality and workmanship to go with that price. Things that you (and people admiring your stuff) can SEE the money paid for, not abstract things like engineering (hey, that's already paid for right?), or boring things like the Uni-Q (hey, it's the same generation as the R series - looks just the same).

Making sure the incidental bits like cabinet finish and internal wiring are clearly better than the cheaper models helps customers feel better handing over all that money to pay for the real stuff.

I'm sure KEF could make a "budget" Reference 5 Meta that sounded as good with cheap wiring, Radio Shack connectors and a ****** finish, but it wouldn't get many takers at £17,000. (If they could even save £500 in parts by doing that?). People operating in that price range want visible quality, and no corners cut.

I didn’t buy a pair of blade because my wife didn’t like the plastic foots.

 

[Descartes]

I didn’t buy a pair of blade because my wife didn’t like the plastic foots.

Plastic foot seriously not aluminum?

 

[Daka]

What they mercifully also don't do is claim that they acoustically benefit from thicker internal wiring...

But look, the Reference is super-expensive. There's a lot of design and assembly and fancy parts that need to be paid for.

You pay for those parts by ensuring it has an impression of quality and workmanship to go with that price. Things that you (and people admiring your stuff) can SEE the money paid for, not abstract things like engineering (hey, that's already paid for right?), or boring things like the Uni-Q (hey, it's the same generation as the R series - looks just the same).

Making sure the incidental bits like cabinet finish and internal wiring are clearly better than the cheaper models helps customers feel better handing over all that money to pay for the real stuff.

I'm sure KEF could make a "budget" Reference 5 Meta that sounded as good with cheap wiring, Radio Shack connectors and a ****** finish, but it wouldn't get many takers at £17,000. (If they could even save £500 in parts by doing that?). People operating in that price range want visible quality, and no corners cut.

Problem being when you can have speaker for 1-2k that has similar finish when it comes to wood veneer.
You would expect little bit more for the money - not only in terms of finish, or sound but design as well. Reference is very simple, old fashion design.
True design like this fits better into average British home. Maybe that’s what their niche is - small footprint.