KEF Reference 5 VS Blade 2 vs Muon

[richard12511]

Preference score is as flawed almost as subjective opinion. While you've had no problem believing that there is a difference of only 20% (what thewas wrote) you have a problem believing when a guy who owns both says the difference is greater. What's the catch ?

The percentages are totally subjective and dependent on the way one views these percentages. Logarithmic? Linear? From the way I view these things, saying the LS50M + subs is only 40% as good seems rather silly, but I tend to view this question different than most, or so it seems. For me 0% as good would be it doesn't produce sound at all. Ignoring dynamics(which is a big part of where extra cost is justified) 50-60% would be like internal TV speakers. More than half of the sound quality is there. You can watch TV and understand dialogue, all your music sounds like your music, just with less bass, and less refinement. For me, a JBL 308p is probably 80-85%+ as good as the best there is. Going from TV speakers to JBL 308p is a bigger leap than going from the 308p to the M2. Outside of dynamics and bass, I just haven't heard anything that's (what I would call) "way better" than a good neutral, budget loudspeaker.

I know that by far the biggest jump in sound quality I've ever experienced was when I went from TV speakers to my Infinity Beta 20 setup. That was more of an improvement than the jump from the Infinity Beta 20 to Genelec 8351 is. If I A/Bed the two against each other, I bet most non audiophiles would say something like "the Genelec sounds a little better, but they both sound amazing".

Like I said, though, I think I have a different scale(more linear?). Just the way I think about it I suppose. I had several people message me a few months ago asking why I said the 8351b was only 5-10%(at most) better(ignoring bass and dynamics) than the 8030c . I can see why by some different scale that might seem weird. I tend to think this hobby is more or less all about squeezing out that last 10% . I'm fine with it, though. It's comparable to other expensive hobbies. A SOTA road bike might knock a few seconds off your mile time (~1-5%?) over a good bike, but it's not gonna get you a 50-60% improvement.

 

[KMO]

Why did they reduce the woofer size from 9 inch in the original Blade to 6.5 inch in the Blade 2?
Feels like you're getting less for the same price.

Answer was given above:

This particular room in BestBuy is quite large and the bass response from Blades was overwhelming. Room treatments were obviously ineffective in that range. So what now? We have over 100K purist system that can't accurately reproduce bass notes in this room (not blades fault).

The original Blades are just too much for many, or even most, rooms. Sure, you could tame them with DSP, but there's no point having such big+heavy speakers.

What would you have had them change instead in the Blade Two? Remember, the point was to make a smaller+cheaper variant to co-exist with the original, which is still available. It's not "version 2".

It is odd having so little price difference where you are though. It's €26,900 vs €21,900 here. Although I'm sure it's negotiable. Get them to at least throw in some nice speaker cable.

 

[KMO]

The original Blades are just too much for many, or even most, rooms.

Reminded me of this - someone from KEF demonstrating that the Blades can make the office light fittings fall out while not knocking over a coin balanced on top of them (from 7:30):

 

[thewas]

As a owner of both LS50 (with SVS sub) and Blade 2, I respectfully diagree. The LS50 or even the Meta with subs is at max 40% of Blade 2. There are certain songs where the gap increases even more.

As I had written in the original post these numbers are purely subjective, for me 40-50% would be something like a pure JBL 305 which still sounds quite good and is better than what probably 99% of the world population is listening to. Also on the Meta + sub setup it depends alot on how the setup is filtered and placed and like you say also on the listening level, to try to keep a bit up distortion wise you need the Meta (so not the old LS50 you have) and a quite high crossover to the subs which not many subs can handle.

By the way both the Blade 1 and Blade 2 are also not really high SPL loudspeakers, here are the distortion measurements of the 1

(source: https://www.connect.de/testbericht/kef-blade-1221650.html )

and Blade 2

(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-blade-two-stereoplay-2015.pdf )

having both even higher distortion at the critical mid region than the Meta

(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-ls50-meta-stereoplay-2021.pdf )

Per kef web page, Blade 2 distortion:
<0.5% 40Hz - 100kHz
<0.2% 200Hz - 10kHz

See above, plus the distortion advantage of the lower range is irrelevant at the here talked comparison with subwoofer setup.
By the way KEF gives also for the Meta

<0,4% 175 Hz - 20 kHz
<0,1% 300 Hz - 10 kHz
(source: https://us.kef.com/speaker/flagship-hi-fi-speakers/ls50-meta.html )

so actually above 300 Hz (where distortion is more audible) lower values, there is a reason why it also listed under the flagship category.

That of course doesn't mean that the Blade 2 isn't great, as I had written in the acoustic well treated KEF HQ it was one of the best audio experienmces I ever had, I am just relativizing their differences.

The percentages are totally subjective and dependent on the way one views these percentages. Logarithmic? Linear? From the way I view these things, saying the LS50M + subs is only 40% as good seems rather silly, but I tend to view this question different than most, or so it seems. For me 0% as good would be it doesn't produce sound at all. Ignoring dynamics(which is a big part of where extra cost is justified) 50-60% would be like internal TV speakers. More than half of the sound quality is there. You can watch TV and understand dialogue, all your music sounds like your music, just with less bass, and less refinement. For me, a JBL 308p is probably 80-85%+ as good as the best there is. Going from TV speakers to JBL 308p is a bigger leap than going from the 308p to the M2. Outside of dynamics and bass, I just haven't heard anything that's (what I would call) "way better" than a good neutral, budget loudspeaker.

I know that by far the biggest jump in sound quality I've ever experienced was when I went from TV speakers to my Infinity Beta 20 setup. That was more of an improvement than the jump from the Infinity Beta 20 to Genelec 8351 is. If I A/Bed the two against each other, I bet most non audiophiles would say something like "the Genelec sounds a little better, but they both sound amazing".

Like I said, though, I think I have a different scale(more linear?). Just the way I think about it I suppose. I had several people message me a few months ago asking why I said the 8351b was only 5-10%(at most) better(ignoring bass and dynamics) than the 8030c . I can see why by some different scale that might seem weird. I tend to think this hobby is more or less all about squeezing out that last 10% . I'm fine with it, though. It's comparable to other expensive hobbies. A SOTA road bike might knock a few seconds off your mile time (~1-5%?) over a good bike, but it's not gonna get you a 50-60% improvement.

Thank you, you wrote much nicer and detailed what I meant.

 

[SS55]

As I had written in the original post these numbers are purely subjective, for me 40-50% would be something like a pure JBL 305 which still sounds quite good and is better than what probably 99% of the world population is listening to. Also on the Meta + sub setup it depends alot on how the setup is filtered and placed and like you say also on the listening level, to try to keep a bit up distortion wise you need the Meta (so not the old LS50 you have) and a quite high crossover to the subs which not many subs can handle.

By the way both the Blade 1 and Blade 2 are also not really high SPL loudspeakers, here are the distortion measurements of the 1

View attachment 154953
(source: https://www.connect.de/testbericht/kef-blade-1221650.html )

and Blade 2

View attachment 154951
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-blade-two-stereoplay-2015.pdf )

having both even higher distortion at the critical mid region than the Meta

View attachment 154950
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-ls50-meta-stereoplay-2021.pdf )



See above, plus the distortion advantage of the lower range is irrelevant at the here talked comparison with subwoofer setup.
By the way KEF gives also for the Meta

<0,4% 175 Hz - 20 kHz
<0,1% 300 Hz - 10 kHz
(source: https://us.kef.com/speaker/flagship-hi-fi-speakers/ls50-meta.html )

so actually above 300 Hz (where distortion is more audible) lower values, there is a reason why it also listed under the flagship category.

That of course doesn't mean that the Blade 2 isn't great, as I had written in the acoustic well treated KEF HQ it was one of the best audio experienmces I ever had, I am just relativizing their differences.


Thank you, you wrote much nicer and detailed what I meant.

I agree numbers are subjective, to me 20% would be Q150 and 40%would be LS50.

The distortion levels are surprising to me. I absolutely can’t get the Blade 2 to distort while it’s easy to reach the limits of LS50. Thanks for those links but I wish there was a English version of that article.

 

[thewas]

I agree numbers are subjective, to me 20% would be Q150 and 40%would be LS50.

Ok, then we have very different perception and/or ratings which is ok of course.

The distortion levels are surprising to me. I absolutely can’t get the Blade 2 to distort while it’s easy to reach the limits of LS50. Thanks for those links but I wish there was a English version of that article.

Because LS50 distorts very fast in the bass which increases also intermodulation distortions which are very audible, but as said something that can be reduced alot with a very high high pass crossover frequency to subs.

The best automatic translation from German to English is https://www.deepl.com/translate

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

As I had written in the original post these numbers are purely subjective, for me 40-50% would be something like a pure JBL 305 which still sounds quite good and is better than what probably 99% of the world population is listening to. Also on the Meta + sub setup it depends alot on how the setup is filtered and placed and like you say also on the listening level, to try to keep a bit up distortion wise you need the Meta (so not the old LS50 you have) and a quite high crossover to the subs which not many subs can handle.

By the way both the Blade 1 and Blade 2 are also not really high SPL loudspeakers, here are the distortion measurements of the 1

View attachment 154953
(source: https://www.connect.de/testbericht/kef-blade-1221650.html )

and Blade 2

View attachment 154951
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-blade-two-stereoplay-2015.pdf )

having both even higher distortion at the critical mid region than the Meta

View attachment 154950
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-ls50-meta-stereoplay-2021.pdf )



See above, plus the distortion advantage of the lower range is irrelevant at the here talked comparison with subwoofer setup.
By the way KEF gives also for the Meta

<0,4% 175 Hz - 20 kHz
<0,1% 300 Hz - 10 kHz
(source: https://us.kef.com/speaker/flagship-hi-fi-speakers/ls50-meta.html )

so actually above 300 Hz (where distortion is more audible) lower values, there is a reason why it also listed under the flagship category.

That of course doesn't mean that the Blade 2 isn't great, as I had written in the acoustic well treated KEF HQ it was one of the best audio experienmces I ever had, I am just relativizing their differences.


Thank you, you wrote much nicer and detailed what I meant.

Curious but the R7 have less distortion at mid range than blades two?

 

[thewas]

View attachment 154965

Curious but the R7 have less distortion at mid range than blades two?

Yes, newer design/implementation.

 

[Frank Dernie]

How close could you get to the Blade 2 with a pair of LS50 Meta +2 or even 4 subs?

I discussed the huge cost gap between the smaller and larger KEF speakers with Jack at his visit to my local dealer a few years ago.
My starting point was the huge extra amount of money just for extra bass and surely one of the smaller speakers with a sub would be as good but cheaper.
He told me the UniQ driver in the blade is much better than that in the less expensive speakers, particularly for power handling and it covers over half the frequency range.

In any case the part of the frequency range covered by the bass drivers, below 350Hz, is where around half of the musical energy lies and a sub can't be used that high so the meta driver, however low its distortion won't have the power handling the Blade is capable of both in terms of driver design and the frequency range it has to cover.
Maybe the Reference 1 with subs would be the best value in terms of getting a high quality UniQ crossed over to a reasonable bass driver with subs dealing with the lowest couple of octaves?
£24,000 blades against £6500 for Ref 1 and £4000 for 2 KF92s giving the 4 9" drivers the Blades have.
That is the comparison I would audition if I were in that market.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Why did they reduce the woofer size from 9 inch in the original Blade to 6.5 inch in the Blade 2?
Feels like you're getting less for the same price.

Blade, big heavy £24,000
Blade 2, smaller lighter £18,000

Two different models in the Blade series not one replacing the other.

 

[SS55]

He told me the UniQ driver in the blade is much better than that in the less expensive speakers, particularly for power handling and it covers over half the frequency range.

Similar to Q150 and LS50 using different materials but similar sized Uni-Q driver.

In any case the part of the frequency range covered by the bass drivers, below 350Hz, is where around half of the musical energy lies and a sub can't be used that high so the meta driver, however low its distortion won't have the power handling the Blade is capable of both in terms of driver design and the frequency range it has to cover.

This is exactly why the link posted by thewas took me by surprise. Even if it’s an older generation Uni-Q driver it makes no sense for it to have more distortion in the mid range than LS-50/Meta.

 

[KMO]

He told me the UniQ driver in the blade is much better than that in the less expensive speakers, particularly for power handling and it covers over half the frequency range.

Yep, the Uni-Qs in the Q, R, LS50, Reference and Blade all look very similar from the front, but the build is very different in each. (Although R & LS50 are close). They've settled on the 5"/1" dimensions as being optimal, but they're not built the same.

It appears the Muons have been retrofitted with the Blade's 5" Uni-Q, replacing its original 6.5". I don't see any evidence of that being a different driver. (This was made available to existing Muon owners for the relatively trifling sum of $10,000 including engineer on-site visit, regardless of location).

 

[KMO]

Even if it’s an older generation Uni-Q driver it makes no sense for it to have more distortion in the mid range than LS-50/Meta.

Yeah, they talk about "generations", but those are relating to "core" technologies and overall design concepts - 12th generation being marked by the tweeter gap dampers being fitted.

But within each generation they are still making very different Uni-Qs at different price points, with the same jobs being done in different ways, such as how they couple the former to the cone.

£24,000 blades against £6500 for Ref 1 and £4000 for 2 KF92s giving the 4 9" drivers the Blades have.
That is the comparison I would audition if I were in that market.

Yep, comparing the LS50 + subs to a Blade is a bit optimistic. But the Reference Uni-Q is pretty close to the Blade's. The LS50's is in a significantly lower engineering price bracket, and you don't get the 350Hz crossover.

 

[Pdxwayne]

As I had written in the original post these numbers are purely subjective, for me 40-50% would be something like a pure JBL 305 which still sounds quite good and is better than what probably 99% of the world population is listening to. Also on the Meta + sub setup it depends alot on how the setup is filtered and placed and like you say also on the listening level, to try to keep a bit up distortion wise you need the Meta (so not the old LS50 you have) and a quite high crossover to the subs which not many subs can handle.

By the way both the Blade 1 and Blade 2 are also not really high SPL loudspeakers, here are the distortion measurements of the 1

View attachment 154953
(source: https://www.connect.de/testbericht/kef-blade-1221650.html )

and Blade 2

View attachment 154951
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-blade-two-stereoplay-2015.pdf )

having both even higher distortion at the critical mid region than the Meta

View attachment 154950
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-ls50-meta-stereoplay-2021.pdf )



See above, plus the distortion advantage of the lower range is irrelevant at the here talked comparison with subwoofer setup.
By the way KEF gives also for the Meta

<0,4% 175 Hz - 20 kHz
<0,1% 300 Hz - 10 kHz
(source: https://us.kef.com/speaker/flagship-hi-fi-speakers/ls50-meta.html )

so actually above 300 Hz (where distortion is more audible) lower values, there is a reason why it also listed under the flagship category.

That of course doesn't mean that the Blade 2 isn't great, as I had written in the acoustic well treated KEF HQ it was one of the best audio experienmces I ever had, I am just relativizing their differences.


Thank you, you wrote much nicer and detailed what I meant.

I tried before to match ls50 to subs using minidsp, crossover high, but the sound quality simply not what I like.

Maybe minidsp 2x4 HD analog in quality just so-so. Maybe the subs I used not clean enough. Maybe having subs on the ground and crossover high mess up the sound stage feels....

Anyway, the LS50 + meta, crossover high, might sound like a good solution, but not necessarily a cheap solution to try to match Blade 2 in a large room.

Having the ability to crossover high means one needs a very good crossover solution. That solution likely come in the form of minidsp shd, which add ~$1300 to the total cost.

Then the subs have to be able to match the distortion numbers of the Blade from 50hz up for all the different SPL. This one I have no idea. How many subs can have 0.4% distortions @ 40hz and up for decent loudness level in a large room? How many can do so up to 300hz? Those likely won't come cheap either....

Then there is the sound stage coherence issue. Subs are a bit too low to the ground. Having them producing tone to 300hz mess with the stage. Then one have to pay extra to lift up the subs...What if the subs are 100+lb each??

In addition, this would cause large headache if one wants to use AVR solution for both movie and music. The subs for music likely won't be able to be used for the 0.1 bass channel for movie. Thus, more money needed to be spent to add a new sub just for the 0.1 channel.....Or buy additional solution for setup with home theatre by-pass, but can handle stereo bass.....

 

[Ron Texas]

Preference score is as flawed almost as subjective opinion. While you've had no problem believing that there is a difference of only 20% (what thewas wrote) you have a problem believing when a guy who owns both says the difference is greater. What's the catch ?

Bias. Maybe they are in different rooms. Maybe his subs are not set up optimally.

 

[tecnogadget]

Maybe the Reference 1 with subs would be the best value in terms of getting a high quality UniQ crossed over to a reasonable bass driver with subs dealing with the lowest couple of octaves?
£24,000 blades against £6500 for Ref 1 and £4000 for 2 KF92s giving the 4 9" drivers the Blades have.
That is the comparison I would audition if I were in that market.

I think you are missing the R3 + Subs as the best value. The measurement results are out there (Amir + Erin). The frequency response is as smooth as a passive can get, with no visible resonances, great tracking of the curves, great directivity, and lowest distortion values among the bests.
It has a high-quality 12gen Uni-Q crossed at 400Hz, below that the bass drivers would comfortably work until the Subwoofer crossover range, with no signs of IMD at all for the Uni-Q.

Sure thing, Ref 1 is a better speaker and is the better speaker if compared from an only performance perspective to R3. And the step-up costs can be justified since it has more advanced cabinet construction, made one by one by hand at the KEF UK factory, and every unit QC tested and measured, all of that is expensive.

But still, R3 is where diminishing returns start. The performance step up when paired with a subwoofer, room correction DSP applied and target curve won't be so high.

-Ref 1 may have slightly smoother FR and PIR (to be confirmed by Klippel NFS measurements), but R3 FR is already very good...
-Ref 1 directivity may be slightly better since the shadow flare is machined over the front cabinet, but R3 directivity is already very good...among the best measured
-Ref 1 cabinet is sturdier since it has more internal bracing, a very thick front panel, and it's bolted to the back, but R3 cabinet also has CLD bracing, and it's also super sturdy and dead rock...
-Ref 1 may have even less distortion because of maybe better Uni-Q magnets/motor system, but R3 distortion is already incredibly low and non an issue for audibility threshold...

The 2014 R series already got some trickle-down technology from the Reference series launched the same year...and then it was revamped in 2018 giving it a closer edge with the Refs. The latter's are better and more sophisticated, but I think you already get lots of parameters checks controlled down to the audibility threshold with the R3's.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Yeah i think the best value is ref 1 + subs ! but even the reference 1 its expensive vs R3 or even a R7 + subs
Only for value thing i prefer to have a r7 + subs, the tower have a pretty nice measurements, specially in their mid/highs..
Ls50/ metas is not an option to me, i want these mid-bass kicks coming from a woofer instead of a mid range..


But personally i think Kef gonna launch something nice... they need to launch a new R series and new Reference series, when the new reference series come the last reference will be cheaper ! and thats nice, seeying how much distortion in the mid range have the blades vs R series, i wonder how much distortion have their references.... i think they just measure better


edit: Stereoplay have the max spl of KEF BLADES TWO at 101dB? really?
Maximalpegel 101 dB

 

[steve59]

Maximum output (peak sound pressure level at 1m with pink noise)

116dB

Frequency range typical in room bass response (-6dB)

25Hz

From kef direct for blade 2.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Maximum output (peak sound pressure level at 1m with pink noise)

116dB

Frequency range typical in room bass response (-6dB)

25Hz

From kef direct for blade 2.

blades are supposed to deliver much more spl i don't why it said

Maximalpegel 101 dB

google translate : '' Maximum level '' 101dB ''
I don't get it, but also i dont understand german..
Post #204

 

[thewas]

edit: Stereoplay have the max spl of KEF BLADES TWO at 101dB? really?
Maximalpegel 101 dB

Yes, with their own measurement definition (same for all Audio and Stereoplay reviews), why does it surprise you?