-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Kef blade 2 meta frequency response
- Thread starter dogmamann
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,903
- Likes
- 16,927
As 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
"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
- Thread Starter
- #3
Can we then assume this is also having the peak because of the measurement technique ? It’s canton reference 7k from stereophile
Attachments
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 6,903
- Likes
- 16,927
Yes, the bass region is overestimated on most such Stereophile plots, unfortunately it cannot be said though how much.
All stereophile measurements do not apply baffle step correction as per @napilopez
In an anechoic environment that speaker would be damn near flat.
How to make quasi-anechoic speaker measurements/spinoramas with REW and VituixCAD
thread.In an anechoic environment that speaker would be damn near flat.
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.
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.
staticV3
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 8,014
- Likes
- 12,858
Here are KEF's own measurements of the Blade 2 Meta: https://www.spinorama.org/speakers/KEF Blade 2 Meta/KEF/index_vendor.html
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #11
Not anymore.
- Thread Starter
- #13
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.But let me admit one thing, I heard slight bit of boost around 100hz if m not wrong, but never to the level of 6db, probably around 1 or 2 dbs up than normal. In my room I did not had any room gain so the lowest octave was more or less sharply rolled off meaning I heard no rumbles or anything. It needs a sub or two to work full range. The best quality was in the mids, it was so transparent that on most songs I could hear the singer taking back the saliva!! Don’t know if room gain in mids somehow amplified it or the speakers themselves was doing it so transparent. But admittedly the lack of low bass will still feel like you need more when you pay so much.
Last edited:
That directivity index bloody hell.
- Thread Starter
- #15
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
Last edited:
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.
- Thread Starter
- #17
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.
Because his measurement method is based on what he can objectively measure. The moment you go adding the baffle step loss to "correct" the measurement to show it anechoically, it becomes an assumption/not factual but rather a close calculated estimate of the actual bass output. And a lot of the baffle shapes and sizes (especially stereophiles review pool) are wild.
Stereophile do not have an anechoic chamber. They do not have a Klippel NFS or similar. AFAIK, they use windowed farfield measurements stitched to nearfield measurements similar to this method here without adding baffle losses, because this, seemingly in JA's eyes, turns the measurements into an estimate rather than factual.
The only way to get true far field bass response objectively correct, is to use anechoic chamber (a biiiig one), really high outdoor measurements, or NFS or similar. Using baffle step loss software tools only gets you close. Ground plane type measurements get you even closer.
Baffle step loss is typically, in a common floorstanding or standmount speaker with a 8-9 inch wide flat to flat-ish front baffle, is a second order low shelf - starting around 400hz going 6db higher as it moves down to 100hz. Remember - typically.
With this knowledge, you can look at a stereophile measurement and imagine what it might look like:
Last edited:
Predicted in-room response looks picture perfect. Maybe ruler straight on-axis didn’t feel right for this speaker?
I still think it’s one of the best speakers in the world.
staticV3
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2019
- Messages
- 8,014
- Likes
- 12,858
Similar threads
- Locked
