Call Ascend and they will say the ELX towers are endgame. Erin refers to the Blades as end game. Not trying to get anybody to say who is right as I know this is subjective but is the law of diminishing returns very evident here? Would it be worth spending $5000 more or so to get a used pair of Blade 2’s over the ascends? Both would be used for music and HT with subs in a large room.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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 vs Ascend ELX Towers as End Game
- Thread starter sneabs
- Start date
To be fair they are Ascend Acoustic's lineup's endgame. The only head scratchier that I've had with the ELX was the listed room ratings such as sensitivity etc. doesn't reallyseem standard. i wish that they'd have both normal ratings and in rooms. Having said that I'm pretty sure for the money that they are probably pretty good in comparison.
Edit. i was mistaken. they have the normal ratings listed as Anechoic Sensitivity etc. My apologies.
Edit. i was mistaken. they have the normal ratings listed as Anechoic Sensitivity etc. My apologies.
Last edited:
rynberg
Senior Member
How many threads are you going to start on this?
- Thread Starter
- #5
My apologies, it’s a lot of money and I want to make sure I don’t have any buyers remorse. I thought I had it narrowed down then I came across a used pair of blades. Again, my apologies
Keith_W
Major Contributor
All right, I am feeling a bit sorry for you so i'll say something. Both speakers are very good as you can see from the Ascend ELX measurements here and Erin's measurements of the Blade 2 Meta here. So here is a side by side comparative review.
First, the CEA 2034 summary window. I would be hard pressed to say that one was better than the other - they both have flaws. The Blade 2's have a kink in the DI at 200Hz caused by the side firing woofers, and the ELX's have a slightly more lumpy DI in the high end (see that small dip at 2.6kHz).
We can also see that the KEF Blade 2 has a much narrower dispersion, about +/- 30deg horizontally compared to the ELX's which are about +/-50deg horizontally. You can already see this in the DI curves. The narrower the dispersion, the more directional the speaker is. It will throw more sound into a focused spot and less into the room. I wouldn't say the KEF's are so narrow that the sweet spot becomes too small, but it is certainly more directional than the ELX's.
We can predict based on these graphs that the KEF's will probably image better, but the ELX's will have more ambience. The critical distance for the ELX's will be shorter since it throws more sound into the room, and the crit distance for the KEF's will be further away.
One is not necessarily better than the other, it depends on how you set it up in your room, and your preference for direct vs. reflected sound. So nobody on ASR can answer your question and say for sure that one is better than the other, because we do not know your room or your preference.
Most ASR members are not in the business of telling you "I heard this speaker and loved it! You won't regret it!". We are honest, we know that our preference may not be your preference. We can tell you what is objectively a bad speaker, but when we have two speakers that measure well, the difference comes down to individual setup and preference. The best we can do is tell you what the differences are and encourage you to read up on how to interpret a Spinorama so that you can understand the difference yourself. Or, you can watch Erin's video:
First, the CEA 2034 summary window. I would be hard pressed to say that one was better than the other - they both have flaws. The Blade 2's have a kink in the DI at 200Hz caused by the side firing woofers, and the ELX's have a slightly more lumpy DI in the high end (see that small dip at 2.6kHz).
We can also see that the KEF Blade 2 has a much narrower dispersion, about +/- 30deg horizontally compared to the ELX's which are about +/-50deg horizontally. You can already see this in the DI curves. The narrower the dispersion, the more directional the speaker is. It will throw more sound into a focused spot and less into the room. I wouldn't say the KEF's are so narrow that the sweet spot becomes too small, but it is certainly more directional than the ELX's.
We can predict based on these graphs that the KEF's will probably image better, but the ELX's will have more ambience. The critical distance for the ELX's will be shorter since it throws more sound into the room, and the crit distance for the KEF's will be further away.
One is not necessarily better than the other, it depends on how you set it up in your room, and your preference for direct vs. reflected sound. So nobody on ASR can answer your question and say for sure that one is better than the other, because we do not know your room or your preference.
Most ASR members are not in the business of telling you "I heard this speaker and loved it! You won't regret it!". We are honest, we know that our preference may not be your preference. We can tell you what is objectively a bad speaker, but when we have two speakers that measure well, the difference comes down to individual setup and preference. The best we can do is tell you what the differences are and encourage you to read up on how to interpret a Spinorama so that you can understand the difference yourself. Or, you can watch Erin's video:
Last edited:
The Kef Blades also go significantly lower and are a lot more visually imposing.
Imho, the Blade 2s at 10k are a very very good deal. But you might still want to go with the Ascend if you listen less than 9 feet away. Though Kefs might bit a little more room friendly if you can't place the speaker too far away from side walls.
Imho, the Blade 2s at 10k are a very very good deal. But you might still want to go with the Ascend if you listen less than 9 feet away. Though Kefs might bit a little more room friendly if you can't place the speaker too far away from side walls.
Yup. Do you want narrower or wider horizontal dispersion? That should be the primary deciding factor, ignoring any aesthetic concerns. Vertical dispersion is also quite different, with the ELX ribbons having a much smaller window. This may not be a problem at all (and could possibly be a benefit), if the vast majority of your listening is done while seated. Otherwise, the Blades will do an appreciably better job of maintaining higher frequencies if you're standing up / walking around.
Both speakers could be easily EQ'd, but neither speaker should require any EQ above Schroeder unless your room is either extremely lively, or highly damped.
uwotm8
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 629
- Likes
- 654
I think this thread is funny because if once a "$5000 engame" owner will hear something like middle or top of the line MBL omnipolars (in first case it's not so far from Blades price wise) it will be a game over 
insert a lot of coins to continue
$5000 is a lot of money still, and you can buy a pair of perfect speakers, but engame is too big word for.
insert a lot of coins to continue$5000 is a lot of money still, and you can buy a pair of perfect speakers, but engame is too big word for.
- Thread Starter
- #11
Thanks for having pity on me . This is very helpful, I really appreciate it.
Luvchampagne
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2024
- Messages
- 79
- Likes
- 39
Your Salon2 choice are end game. Not so sure the others listed in this thread or others match up to that. Once you hear them you'll know. I've seen them used for $9k on hifishark. I got mine for less. Still crying but there are tears of joy mixed in with the tears of financial pain.
Endgame? There are so many options for the endgame. I have no idea why this thread is limited to 2 options? I also have not idea what the room is or what OP is trying to achieve with the endgame play.
I do know that for my purposes neither of these would be the endgame speakers.
I do know that for my purposes neither of these would be the endgame speakers.
I've always theorized that since the early reflections are what matters most according to Toole's research, that the countour plot isn't all that meaningful. Basically strong response out to 100 degrees doesn't matter much if your sidewall reflection is from your speakers 30 degree off-axis response roughly. With this in mind the Blades actually have the stronger early reflection response and also much better directivity. Even so, I doubt many people would be putting these speakers head to head anyway, they are in very different price brackets and are completely different designs.
End game would be described by myself as whatever level investment you're willing to go, and whatever you like at around that price point..for me it would be about $2000 for speakers and about $1000 for the accompanying subwoofer... Not to be a negative nelly here but imo the op needs to hear the candidates *then* weigh the options...
Luvchampagne
Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2024
- Messages
- 79
- Likes
- 39
So, just to clarify, once you spent that $2k, you would have no desire to upgrade at a later time. Correct?
Syracuse27
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2023
- Messages
- 17
- Likes
- 3
The Ascend Acoustic ELX Towers have some of the best measurements out there. No reason they should not be end game speakers.
Based on my values , yes that would be correct.. I've heard enough good choices at that price point to deem the current choices are good enough for my tastes...I know higher priced choices may/ will be better , but diminishing returns would kick in hard..
I have had a pair of Ascend ELX towers for the last year …
FWIW , I still love them.
audiosciencereview.com
Bk
FWIW , I still love them.
Mini-review Ascend ELX Ribbon Tower …
Got em … How’s the sound ? note , purely subjective….. Very , very similar sound compared to my Salk’s .. SuperCharged Song Towers My Salks , I think , are some of the most articulate , detailed and precise speakers I’ve heard … they were only lacking in the deep-end a bit - but their bass...
audiosciencereview.com
Bk
Last edited:
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Your comment made me look a bit more closely at what I said. I agree with you, and it reminded me that contour plots can be misleading. And I was guilty of being misled. So... I would like to take back what I said about the directivity of the Blades vs. the ELX's and issue an apology. I'll explain where I got it wrong.
The contour plot was the basis of my comment that the KEF's had more narrow directivity. But take a closer look at the legend on the right - the colour schemes are on different scales. On the left, the range is from 90dB to 40dB (i.e. 50dB scale). On the right, the range is 0dB to -30dB (i.e. 30dB scale). Because Erin configured his graph to display a more dramatic colour change, his contour plot makes the KEF's look narrower. My eyes automatically focused on the red part. I think most eyes would.
The lesson here is: unless the contour plots you are comparing are using the same colour scale, a quick glance will mislead you. I knew that, but I forgot it.
We can get a better idea of the directivity by looking at the sound power DI (SPDI, orange line in both graphs).
The SPDI is the logarithm of the ratio of (on axis / sound power). "On axis" means that the mic was placed 1m from the speaker on axis and a single sweep was taken. "Sound power" is the total amount of sound radiated by the speaker in a spherical pattern taken from a few dozen mic positions and averaged.
The Early Reflections DI (ERDI, purple in both graphs) is the logarithm of the ration of (early reflections / sound power). "Early reflections" is the average of several measurements taken on a vertical and horizontal arc from the speaker.
In both cases, the difference between minimum and maximum tells you the directivity. We also want to see a smooth looking graph from minimum to maximum. The bigger the difference, the narrower the dispersion.
Here we can see that the SPDI of the ELX is about 13dB, whilst for the KEF it is 10dB. So the ELX has slightly more narrow dispersion than the KEF's. The ERDI is about the same, 7dB for both speakers.
Once again, I apologise. I should have looked more carefully. I keep saying that the measurements are objective, but interpretation is subjective and prone to mistakes. I will assume that both sets of measurements were taken correctly and not subject to silly errors in setup because that can happen, too.
Similar threads
