Can we then assume this is also having the peak because of the measurement technique ? It’s canton reference 7k from stereophileAs written in the Stereophile review from where this graph is shown it is an artefact of the way the bass region measurements are performed at Stereophile (nearfield without compensation):
"The peak at low frequencies will be entirely due to the nearfield measurement technique, which assumes that the drive units are mounted in a true infinite baffle, ie, one that extends to infinity in both planes."
Source: https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-blade-two-meta-loudspeaker-measurements
Yes, the bass region is overestimated on most such Stereophile plots, unfortunately it cannot be said though how much.Can we then assume this is also having the peak because of the measurement technique ? It’s canton reference 7k from stereophile
Not anymore.I wonder if OP owns Canton Reference 7k?
Actually didn’t notice it. I have a problem only if there is brightness in 2-4K region. I cannot handle it. at 12khz 3db only makes it slightly lively with symbols and gives sensation of spaciousness on paper. But personally I felt it bit darker than what was shown on the graph.Did that canton 12k tweeter resonance give listening fatigue?
View attachment 255902
boost here, just on axis right ?
nope...
View attachment 255903
Source: Stereophile.com
Here are KEF's own measurements of the Blade 2 Meta: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/KEF Blade 2 Meta/KEF/index_vendor.html
View attachment 255834 View attachment 255832
Yes but the combined response is still dropping down, one of two dbs below the 0db line. For 26000 they better be ruler flat and everything has to be perfect. Unless someone is a die hard fan boy this is similar performance what you can get from a 3500 euros, Neumann kh150That directivity index bloody hell.
OK but why dont they try to improve their measurement method or presentation to stop this confusion ? As is, speaker comparison in the bass region seem irrelevant, hence I guess they should not show it or a least with a dot curve.If I had a dollar for every time somebody has misunderstood the Stereophile frequency response plots, I'd be able to buy a pair of those KEF blade 2 metas.
JA mentions the measurement technique affecting the look of the bass response in every single write-up, but it has still caused countless amounts of confusion over the years.
I guess that’s the reason, imo, biamping a speaker with a DSP to correct the response for basses is hard to avoid in terms of every speaker.OK but why dont they try to improve their measurement method or presentation to stop this confusion ? As is, speaker comparison in the bass region seem irrelevant, hence I guess they should not show it or a least with a dot curve.
OK but why dont they try to improve their measurement method or presentation to stop this confusion ? As is, speaker comparison in the bass region seem irrelevant, hence I guess they should not show it or a least with a dot curve.
Yes but the combined response is still dropping down, one of two dbs below the 0db line. For 26000 they better be ruler flat and everything has to be perfect. Unless someone is a die hard fan boy this is similar performance what you can get from a 3500 euros, Neumann kh150
Imo the best Kef to get would be the reference metas. I have listened to blade ones, not metas and I personally liked the reference metas a lot more than them