KEF Blade 2 vs Ascend ELX Towers as End Game

[traind]

On the Ascend forum, Dave talked about his experience with Be. If I recalled correctly, he said the RAAL is the absolute best tweeter he has ever heard, with the exception of a SEAS diamond tweeter, which he does sell as a custom order.

I have the ELX RAAL and I also have a pair of Perlisten with Be tweeters. I personally preference edge on the Be side.

How do you assess the ELX vs Perlisten overall?

 

[PristineSound]

Isn’t your preference for the total implementation rather than the specific tweeter unit?
Keith

Different tweeter materials and design has different performance and so different sonic characters.

Assuming design is superior all around, then material is in play for the final mile.

I personally have an affinity for Be tweeters. Are there speakers with Be tweeters that are poorly design, of course.

 

[Purité Audio]

I haven’t found that to be the case but the speaker’s FR of course makes a huge difference.
Keith

 

[PristineSound]

How do you assess the ELX vs Perlisten overall?

The ELX RAAL does some things better while the Perlisten does some other things better.

My personal preference is the Perlisten S7t has a marginally slight edge over the ELX RAAL. But I also want to note that the S7t is in a treated room and the ELX is in a minimally treated room.

For the money, probably not as good value as the ELX, law of diminishing return.

Anyone on the fence with the ELX RAAL, I highly recommend you to pull the trigger, these are giant killers. I am extraordinary happy with my ELX RAAL, these, along with my Perlisten, may be my forever speakers.

 

[PristineSound]

I haven’t found that to be the case but the speaker’s FR of course makes a huge difference.
Keith

The tweeter material and design has certain physical properties and therefore has an effect on sound reproduction, cone break up, moving mass, as Dave mentioned stored energy, etc.

But. . .material alone is not the cure for bad tweeter design and overall speaker design.

I have heard some plain old aluminum dome tweeters sounding amazing (and presumably the new Purifi tweeter being one of them).

For me personally, when I evaluate speakers, it's not just tonal balance and spatial performance, I have few tracks where I listen for certain details in the high frequency range, maybe between 3kHz and 10kHz range? This includes the decay that Dave talked about.

To date, I have yet to hear any tweeters that comes close to Be and ribbon, with the exception of the Aluminum tweeter on the Blade 1 and 2.

I have heard diamond coated tweeters such as the B&W and the SVS ultra. But always at a show or a showroom, so can't give a good evaluation on them.

Now keep in mind, I'm not a reviewer or dealer, so the number of different speakers I have encountered is rather limited.

 

[mglobe]

You are viewing this thread as self-promoting? Do you not understand we had nothing at all to do with this comparison? Ascend clones? what are you even talking about? Do you honestly think the OP or anyone in this thread is employed by us or encouraged by us?

I'll think twice before posting here again...

Please continue to post. There are people who earn the ignore button. I’ve got several who have qualified. From time to time I will read one of their posts to see if maybe the ones that got them ignored were anomalies, and when I do, I very rarely regret having them on the list. I’d bet that I’m not the only one who has them on ignore.

 

[witwald]

The tweeter material and design has certain physical properties and therefore has an effect on sound reproduction, cone break up, moving mass, as Dave mentioned stored energy, etc. ... I have heard some plain old aluminum dome tweeters sounding amazing ... To date, I have yet to hear any tweeters that comes close to Be and ribbon ...

A research paper by Rotter and Lindau (2010), "Audibility of tweeter performance beyond spectrum and phase", puts forward an entirely different objective experience:

"Ten subjects performed the listening test... When eliminating frequency and phase response irregularities, baffle and room interaction, non-linear behavior, and distance effects, a blind-comparison listening test could not reveal audible differences between different types of tweeters. Neither the material nor the actuator principle, neither the tweeters geometry nor the specific form of wave fronts in the far field could be shown to be distinctive features of different tweeter types."

 

[PristineSound]

". . . neither the tweeters geometry"

Thank you for sharing, I will give it a read.

But I find this puzzling, we know tweeter geometry is important to reinforcement stiffness, which can push up the breakup mode to higher frequencies. Breakup causes distortion and coloration, resulting in the loss of clarity.

 

[MarkS]

Breakup mode for essentially all tweeters in common use is above the audible range, where distortion and coloration do not matter.

 

[PristineSound]

Breakup mode for essentially all tweeters in common use is above the audible range, where distortion and coloration do not matter.

Yes, that is true, even for a modern run of the mill aluminum tweeter, I believe breakup is typically in the 30kHz range or so, well above audible range. But I believe that is the case partly because of the geometry.

In any case, I know many will argue that tweeter material is immaterial (pun intended) in terms of audibility, I can't argue one way or the other aside from my limited personal experience with various tweeter materials, but we know different material have different measurable physical properties, does that translate to audible differences? I guess it's open for debate, hopefully we all can learn something from it.

 

[witwald]

I don't know whether the objectively faster transient response of a "massless" ribbon translates to audibility in any meaningful way.

The mass of the ribbon in a ribbon tweeter is finite, albeit small. Assuming the ribbon tweeter is behaving in a linear manner, as would be hoped, then its transient response is simply the result of its frequency response.

 

[Karmacoma]

If I asked that question about beryllium tweeters to Dave directly, it's not because I think beryllium tweeters are better at reproducing sound per se, but because it's supposed to help designers to reach their objectives of low distorsion (sensitivity too maybe? I don't know the subject) more easily.

THX Hi-res audio certified speakers for instance, which, if my memory's good, are supposed to reach 40kHz, would certainly benefit a beryllium tweeter cos that'd be a lot easier to avoid breakup mods, but there are certainly other ways to reach that objective.

So my question was more oriented towards design than audibility even if they're correlated, nevertheless if for instance someone can assure me of audible improvements on attack and decay that you couldn't get with another cheaper material it'd also be interesting, just trying to learn stuff.

 

[witwald]

THX speakers for instance, which, if my memory's good, are supposed to reach 40kHz,

Why would they be supposed to reach 40kHz, as 20kHz is about the limit of human hearing? Can you point to a formal publication that suggests that 40kHz limit?

 

[suttondesign]

I am somewhat flummoxed by the discussion of tweeter materials. A given material moves air. You don’t listen to the material, but to the pressure waves it generates. So long as two materials operate within desirable parameters as tweeters, I don’t understand why they would have different intrinsic sonic characteristics as materials. But I can certainly see as how different materials must be optimized to achieve a desired sonic performance - that is, what they need to do to create the right kind of pressure wave in air. Perhaps Be makes it easier to achieve reproduction without undesirable characteristics, I don’t know. But the marketing buzz seems to lure people with the idea that exotic materials sound exotic, instead of like, well, air-pushers.

 

[Karmacoma]

Why would they be supposed to reach 40kHz, as 20kHz is about the limit of human hearing? Can you point to a formal publication that suggests that 40kHz limit?

Why ask me I don't know, I'm wrong anyway it's the Hi-res audio certification that asks for that I'll edit it. So yeah why Hi-res audio? Marketing I guess but that's just my opinion and that wasn't the point of the post.

 

[PristineSound]

I am somewhat flummoxed by the discussion of tweeter materials. A given material moves air. You don’t listen to the material, but to the pressure waves it generates. So long as two materials operate within desirable parameters as tweeters, I don’t understand why they would have different intrinsic sonic characteristics as materials. But I can certainly see as how different materials must be optimized to achieve a desired sonic performance - that is, what they need to do to create the right kind of pressure wave in air. Perhaps Be makes it easier to achieve reproduction without undesirable characteristics, I don’t know. But the marketing buzz seems to lure people with the idea that exotic materials sound exotic, instead of like, well, air-pushers.

IMHO, it is completely reasonable to question if different materials used for tweeter diaphragm can result in different physical attributes and behaviors, hence resulting in audible differences.

Let's use titanium as an example, it's much stiffer, harder to weight ratio than aluminum, this is not something I am making up, this is scientific fact. You can have the same stiffness for less weight, potentially reducing moving mass and therefore improving transients.

It's inconceivable to say that different materials doesn't have different physical properties.

The question is, is it audible? Just like is 100dB SINAD vs. 120dB SINAD audible.

Anyway, I think the controversy is that exotic materials costs more, so there are the utilitarians who are against paying more.

 

[Keith_W]

It's inconceivable to say that different materials doesn't have different physical properties.

The question is, is it audible? Just like is 100dB SINAD vs. 120dB SINAD audible.

We have had this discussion on ASR before. The answer is, different or exotic materials have already been exploited in driver or speaker design and so the properties have already been taken advantage of to give an audible benefit. For example, some materials may be more rigid and thus pistonic up to a higher frequency limit before cone break-up. But the loudspeaker designer is aware of that, and would certainly know the driver limits and exploit the wider bandwidth - maybe by setting the XO point higher, maybe by using a gentler XO slope. Maybe one material is lighter and therefore has better sensitivity. You can't simply swap a paper coned driver for an aluminium one with the same cabinet and same XO and expect it to perform the same, so it is difficult to compare. Also, the benefits may not necessarily be audibility - a heavier cone means a bigger voice coil, which means more amplifier power is required. It may also mean the driver has to deal with more heat. Or choosing a certain driver might cost less.

 

[PristineSound]

You can't simply swap a paper coned driver for an aluminium one with the same cabinet and same XO and expect it to perform the same, so it is difficult to compare.

Couldn't agree more here. The moment you change the diaphragm, the motor structure and everything else is not meant to work to specification. Same goes for the xo design. Absolutely correct, it's really hard to compare, because it'll never be apples vs. apples.

But I do think there is value in the anecdotal testimony from a speaker designer who's been doing this for years and has experience with endless tweeters and a lab that allows him to conduct controlled listening experiments, such as Dave.

Anyway, I'm sure this topic has been talked to death already, no point of talking it more here.

 

[PristineSound]

Blade 1 Meta at Magnolia, one of very few that has it on the show room from what I was told.

Just had a demo. The room is treated. Powered by a robust Mark Levinson integrated. Speaker placement is questionable.

I own the ELX RAAL in an minimally treated room, corner bass traps in the front wall and heavy curtain in the back wall covering the window. Optimal placement, but one piece of furniture does get in the way of sonic performance.

The Blade 1 Meta's bass extends lower of course and it's very clean bass, that shouldn't be a surprise, since it's a much bigger speaker. Doesn't have that mid-mass punch like the ELX RAAL. But overall bass on the Blade is still better, again, this should be zero surprises to anyone.


Will be keeping all other comments and thoughts to myself as not to influence the upcoming shootout that Dave is hosting.
View attachment 461797

I think the KEF Blade 2 Meta vs. Ascend Acoustics ELX RAAL shootout is coming close to an end. You can read about it here. I've been closely following this thread. It appears the general consensus for those who participated is that both have wins and both have loses and source material has a big play.

Now that this comparison is coming to an end, I would like to share my experience with KEF Blade 1 Meta when I was at Best Buy. I also have experience with the Blade 2 Meta, but the room sucked so much, I won't even talk about that experience.

Before I begin. I heard them in two different locations and obviously I could not do a side by side and back to back comparison, so everything is only going by memory on the characteristics that drew my attention at the time of listening to them separately.

I thought they performed fairly equal with the exception of the bass on the Blade 1 Meta, which is what I already stated in my previous post. The others difference I observed is that the Blade had was this uncanny detail (it's NOT accentuated high frequency as the Blade 1 Meta is incredibly linear) with instruments in the low tremble and up; it is so distinctive that I have to rewind to make sure I heard it right and the soundstage is a bit narrower (but this room is much more treated so it did deaden much of the first reflection).

For the money, the ELX RAAL is the pound for pound king, maybe things would change when the all Purifi Ascilab comes out? But for now, the ELX RAAL in my personal experience is the pound for pound king. However, if I was a rich and I can only choose one between these two, I will take the Blade 1 Meta, but if I was that rich, I would buy both.

 

[courtesy]

Hi All,
I am a long time Ascend owner, bought my first set in 2005. My main system is built around the Sierra LX, and bedroom system is built around the Luna v2.

Over the years, I have been to Ascend's offices/warehouse many times to listen to speakers, Ascends and others.

I hope this is allowed here, Dave and I worked out a date for me and a couple of other guys to listen to the Blades, and compare them to ELX Towers. That will be Saturday, September 6th. If you are interested in joining us, please let me know. We all live in the South Bay area of Los Angeles and will likely carpool to Ascend.

Huge thanks to everyone who came out yesterday. We had a total of 6 people for this session, many of whom had a very long drive. I am hopeful that some will post their thoughts as to what differences they heard.

We had our listening session this past Saturday, and this is what I posted on Ascend's forum

Thanks Dave!! You and Dina are always great hosts.

Hi All...I am one of the six that made the trek to Ascend.

I am one of three that carpooled from the South Bay area from Los Angeles. We were quite lucky as we didn't hit any real traffic on the way there and back. My first visit to Ascend where this was the case. I wish I knew why. About an hours drive for us, so not bad. A couple guys drove two hours from the Pasadena area of LA and did hit traffic on the way back, they are not on this forum. One guy is fair local to Ascend (Orange County), he had the easiest commute.

All six of us took turns listening in the sweet spot(s), shifting from side to side depending on which pair we (thought) listening to.

First, the visual impact of the KEFs is undeniable. They are not as imposing as I thought would be in person. Whether they will work for you in your room of course is subjective.

I didn't take detailed notes, but did listen to my regular gamut of music when listening to speakers. That said, there were times when I prefered the Blades, others when I prefered the ELX's, and yet others where I could not tell them apart. Often times I had to look at switcher to see what speakers I was listening to, and even then I walked up to the speakers to make sure that I didn't mix up which was which in my head. While listening and shifting left and right a foot or two to be in each set of speakers sweet spot, I thought to myself "am I in the right spot?".

I think all of us had similar experiences. I know one mentioned he tended to like the KEFs in the sweet spot and the ELXs when not in the sweet spot.

One song in particular that stood out because the RAAL was Nils Lofgren's "Keith Don't Go". While tonality the speakers we basically indistinguishable, the leading edge of the guitar with the RAALs have an edge/attack that is ever slight more defined.

When in other areas of the room, there were songs where the differences were very evident. One example for me and the spot I was in, it was the midrange. There was a Harry Connick song that when the listener switched the speakers where Harry's voice and midrange became more prominent and boxy. I don't know which speaker this was.

It was great seeing everyone including Dave and Dina, talking shop and life, and listening to music.

FYI: The Oppo 205 (I think Dave has an enhanced version) handled DAC duties (files on USB, CDs, and also fed by a WiiM Pro Plus streamer that I brought using Tidal). The Oppo fed the Rotel preamp, into the AVA ABX switch, which then goes into the ATI amp (each of the four speakers on its own channel).

Here are some pictures I took. I forgot to get a picture of the group, so most of these are after the session was pretty much over.