Kef blade 2 meta frequency response

[Koeitje]

Yes, you understood correctly. I took your previous post to mean that the final part is done by listening only, which is not the case at KEF. Listening is also used during development, we typically make quite a few early prototypes too. Personally I think it would be rather remiss of us not to listen whatsoever. Even if you take a view that objective data is enough to fully understand how a speaker sounds, this comes from experience and we have to build and maintain that across the team. Plus, our whole team are audio and music fans - listening products we've worked on is very motivating, and trying to understand the perspective of our customers is very important too.

I think its also important to get a sense of what it would sound like in the kind of rooms they are most likely used in. Something like the Blade 2 probably wont be put in small room with a lot of free space around it, while for example for the R3 that would be a more likely scenario. Same goes for listening distance and SPL requirements. It makes sense to test those at the sort of expected scenarios for each speaker.

I'm going to guess that measurements also help you understand what exactly you are hearing a bit better?

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I'm going to guess that measurements also help you understand what exactly you are hearing a bit better?

Not speaking for Jack but it can also work the other way. Listening may help distinguish which amongst the inevitable minor vagaries in the measurements are audible (and, therefore, require further attention) and which are not.

 

[sigbergaudio]

End of the day, they do tune the final part based on subjective listening , as opposed to the popular theory of looking at the graph and deciding. When other manufacturers say that, people here get attack them back , which isn’t fair in my opinion. No manufacturer produces their speakers without their listening tests, by real people, and tweaking based on what is listened. Simple.

This sounds like a myth or some sort of strawman. To manufacture speakers without listening to them would be a very strange approach, do you know of anyone who does that? And I also don't think "people here" attack manufacturers that listen to their speakers to ensure that they actually sound good as opposed to deciding just from a graph.

I do agree that you will find people on this forum that think they can read anything from a graph (and perhaps then thinks that means the manufacturers can too). You will also find people with the opinion that anything except a perfectly flat anechoic response is "wrong". Hopefully this thread has helped dampen that idea.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Not speaking for Jack but it can also work the other way. Listening may help distinguish which amongst the inevitable minor vagaries in the measurements are audible (and, therefore, require further attention) and which are not.

Agreed, it's a lot of back and forth. Listening sessions can help verify that something that measures well also sounds good. And if something doesn't sound right, inspecting the measurements may help you figure out why.

And sometimes small changes or "improvements" are made based on the measurements, that doesn't really do anything, or even makes it worse. Measurements and listening sessions are complimentary tools that are both indispensable.

 

[Sancus]

End of the day, they do tune the final part based on subjective listening , as opposed to the popular theory of looking at the graph and deciding. When other manufacturers say that, people here get attack them back , which isn’t fair in my opinion. No manufacturer produces their speakers without their listening tests, by real people, and tweaking based on what is listened. Simple.

No one has ever suggested manufacturers shouldn't listen? Actually, double blind listening tests vs competitors would generally be considered the gold standard of evaluating speakers.

 

[dogmamann]

You will also find people with the opinion that anything except a perfectly flat anechoic response is "wrong". Hopefully this thread have helped dampen that idea.

Agreed to everything else. What I find more often are people who generally vouch for a flat sound everywhere, but when it comes to a brand they really like, they are ok from the deviation from flat, but do not accept another manufacturers deviation.

 

[dogmamann]

Actually, double blind listening tests vs competitors would generally be considered the gold standard of evaluating speakers.

I never meant manufactures shouldn’t listen to their speakers. Never knew every manufacturer will buy 1000s of speakers from other brands to compare against theirs blindly. Thanks for the info.

 

[Koeitje]

This sounds like a myth or some sort of strawman. To manufacture speakers without listening to them would be a very strange approach, do you know of anyone who does that? And I also don't think "people here" attack manufacturers that listen to their speakers to ensure that they actually sound good as opposed to deciding just from a graph.

I do agree that you will find people on this forum that think they can read anything from a graph (and perhaps then thinks that means the manufacturers can too). You will also find people with the opinion that anything except a perfectly flat anechoic response is "wrong". Hopefully this thread have helped dampen that idea.

Its a common strawman argument on audiophile forums. I don't think anyone here thinks that you can buy or design a loudspeaker by just looking at some measurements. But I sure can use measurements to give me an idea of what is going to be worth listening to. This kind of strawman makes it virtually impossible to have a proper conversation with some people.

[small]There are cases where buying without listening based on measurements can be ok. For example, I didn't want to go and compare 10 different <€400 a pair monitor loudspeakers that I just use at my PC for casual listening. I just got what looked good on paper and would most likely only require minimal equalisation [/small]

 

[Sancus]

I never meant manufactures shouldn’t listen to their speakers. Never knew every manufacturer will buy 1000s of speakers from other brands to compare against theirs blindly. Thanks for the info.

Do you feel compelled to invent a straw man for every reply? The number '1000s' never appeared in my post. Revel does(or at least has done in the past) this type of blinded testing. It's pretty easy to get a small set of the main competitors together. Only a small(single digit, even) sample would be needed.

Contrary to popular belief, most speakers are not meaningfully different designs from the typical.

 

[617]

Yes, you understood correctly. I took your previous post to mean that the final part is done by listening only, which is not the case at KEF. Listening is also used during development, we typically make quite a few early prototypes too. Personally I think it would be rather remiss of us not to listen whatsoever. Even if you take a view that objective data is enough to fully understand how a speaker sounds, this comes from experience and we have to build and maintain that across the team. Plus, our whole team are audio and music fans - listening products we've worked on is very motivating, and trying to understand the perspective of our customers is very important too.

Can you go into more detail as to how you conduct listening tests, whether listeners are 'blind' to potential issues or are being asked to pay attention to certain things? Do you have some kind of scoring system? Hammering a response into a target using passive components or DSP is a pretty crude process, but I'm interested in how you prioritize response changes from listening impressions.

 

[dogmamann]

Can you go into more detail as to how you conduct listening tests, whether listeners are 'blind' to potential issues or are being asked to pay attention to certain things? Do you have some kind of scoring system? Hammering a response into a target using passive components or DSP is a pretty crude process, but I'm interested in how you prioritize response changes from listening impressions.

He never mentioned blind.

 

[617]

He never mentioned blind.

I meant blind in the sense that the listeners we're not asked to listen for specific issues but rather to simply offer their impressions as a first time listener

 

[Descartes]

Not speaking for Jack but it can also work the other way. Listening may help distinguish which amongst the inevitable minor vagaries in the measurements are audible (and, therefore, require further attention) and which are not.

Kal is the proud owner of Blade 2 Meta

 

[egellings]

Why does this speaker have so much artificial boost in mid bass ? Kefs own references doesn’t have this tuning.

Maybe a room effect or resonance.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Maybe a room effect or resonance.

i think its the way its measure... the method.
But the previous Blades didnt show it? well, Im pretty sure in this thread is a guy from stereophile, he can explain better

KEF Blade Two loudspeaker Measurements

Sidebar 3: Measurements

www.stereophile.com

This is from KEF

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Maybe a room effect or resonance.

Actually, what's unusual in the measurement is how little bass boost is shown. John splices a nearfield measurement of the woofer onto the anechoic portion higher up. The mismatch in output readings usually causes a larger hump in the midbass. Here's a plot of the Monitor Audio Silver 500 7G tower:

 

[egellings]

Now I can go to my hi-fi salon and ask, "How're ya fixed for Blades?".

 

[dogmamann]

Maybe a room effect or resonance.

That’s lame for a published measurement!

 

[Beave]

Maybe a room effect or resonance.

No. The question was answered long ago.

 

[Beave]

That’s lame for a published measurement!

What is lame?