KEF Blade 2 vs Ascend ELX Towers as End Game

[mj30250]

Cannot access the 2 other graphs referenced. Can you post or link them?

The forum requires you to be registered and logged in to view pictures.

Here is the KEF's response when placed in the middle of the room:

The overlayed anechoic EIR of each speaker:

 

[MarkS]

Here is the KEF's response when placed in the middle of the room:

View attachment 465661

That's pretty horrific.

And an excellent illustration of why room correction is essential, no matter how much you've spent on speakers.

 

[Ktacos]

That's pretty horrific.

And an excellent illustration of why room correction is essential, no matter how much you've spent on speakers.

I'd argue it's actually pretty good. There doesn't appear to be any troublesome nulls, 200hz looks pretty clean. The elevations are easy to fix, but nulls aren't.

 

[MarkS]

It's only pretty good if EQ is going to be applied.

 

[Mark609]

You guys may be OK with a nasty 9 dB null at 300 Hz +/-, not this hombre. Sorry, but my vote goes to the ELX, at least on paper. Nothing ARC couldn't correct but even then it would be a struggle vs a peak.

 

[aarons915]

That's pretty horrific.

And an excellent illustration of why room correction is essential, no matter how much you've spent on speakers.

It's because of the side firing woofers and being placed right next to the other towers most likely, Blades are probably difficult to set up in a room due to the woofers. They are flat in anechoic measurements.

 

[Oddball]

It's only pretty good if EQ is going to be applied.

Is it - and how effective it is?

 

[mj30250]

It's because of the side firing woofers and being placed right next to the other towers most likely, Blades are probably difficult to set up in a room due to the woofers. They are flat in anechoic measurements.

I think that plot was generated by a single speaker in the middle of the room, not when both pairs of speakers were set up adjacent to each other. In any case, it's really not all that abnormal for an in-room response. If these speakers were to be permanent fixtures in someone's home, the floor bounce (?) dip could likely be addressed by a combination of absorption and EQ, and the broad bass elevation could be easily brought down with EQ.

 

[Ktacos]

It's only pretty good if EQ is going to be applied.

If only there was a way.

 

[Mort]

And while we're at it let's only look at on axis response because that's the way we always listen. Ignore all the directivity differences, why don't we!

 

[mj30250]

I saw that the below was shared on Ascend's forum. It seems like this was done sighted rather than blind, but the subjective impact that changing tweeters made was interesting to read. It would be helpful to know how loudly the music tracks were being played, though. These speakers would seem to be close enough in tonality and overall sound quality that I wonder if more differentiation would be apparent at the higher end of the volume scale.

Ascend forum post.

Below is the write-up from the local musician who was here 2 weeks ago. I believe he spent about 3-4 hours listening. I sincerely apologize for not posting this sooner.

---

ASCEND ACOUSTICS LISTENING SESSION – 7/30/25​

KEF Blade 2 Meta versus Ascend Acoustics ELX Titan Tower (dome tweeter)

Overview: The cabinet design of the KEF Blade is dazzling, a work of art. The beveled front edges eliminate diffraction in a way that the rounded edges of the AA ELX Tower do not. The AA ELX Tower is a beautiful speaker for its price, the gloss black finish is very attractive.
The general characteristic of the KEF Blade 2 Meta is a wide, airy soundstage with greater separation of frequencies than the AA ELX Titan Tower. This may be due in large part to its design, having drivers on 3 axes. Beyond that, the KEFs and Ascends are more comparable than one might expect given the order of magnitude difference in MSRP.
I subjected the two pairs of test speakers to a variety of musical recordings and genres digitally sourced from uncompressed FLAC files. The first pair of AA ELX Towers were equipped with their dome tweeter.

Pink Floyd – Goodbye Blue Sky
KEF Blades: excellent low-frequency response and sound dispersion. The sound was airier and more resonant than the AA ELX Titan Towers.
AA ELX Titan: More audible midrange but less distinction between vocals and instruments. The low frequencies sounded a bit muddier than the KEF Blades.
Advantage: KEF

Bruno Mars – Locked Out Of Heaven
KEF Blades: very prominent midrange, a bit more than I prefer. Instruments not as distinct as AA ELX Titan Towers.
AA ELX Titan: Very balanced mix of frequencies, sound dispersion narrower than KEFs, but overall compared very well.
Advantage: AA

Christopher Cross – Sailing
KEF Blades: Excellent vocal/instrument balance and dispersion
AA ELX Titan: Vocals very forward spatially in the mix, high frequencies a bit sharp
Advantage: KEF

Coldplay – Clocks (this recording is inferior compared to the previous three)
KEF Blades: very clear instrumentals with distinct separation between instruments, percussive sound
AA ELX Titan: the vocals presented with excessive midrange but otherwise overall sound rated close to the KEFs.
Advantage: KEF

Linkin Park – Points Of Authority
KEF Blades: excessive low and mid frequencies, loss of clarity perhaps due to the type of music.
AA ELX Titan: good clarity between vocals and instruments, overall sound quality superior to KEFs
Advantage: AA

Steely Dan – Time Out Of Mind
KEF Blades: sharp, distinct high frequencies, guitars more prominent than AA ELX, more reverberation, airiness
AA ELX Titan: Good tonal balance, more saxophone at the expense of less guitar
Advantage: KEF

Steely Dan – Home At Last
KEF Blades: Very saturated low frequencies, vocals a bit lost in the bass heaviness.
AA ELX Titan: Overall better frequency balance, vocals more distinct.
Advantage: AA

Supertramp – The Logical Song (as with Coldplay, older recording, less dynamic)
KEF Blades: Emphasized keyboards over vocals, very prominent midrange
AA ELX Titan: Vocals forward in the mix
Advantage: Neither

Toto – Rosanna
KEF Blades: spacious, airy sound, emphasis on low and low-mid frequencies, texture and detail in the lows
AA ELX Titan: tight and punchy, very comparable sound if narrower soundstage
Advantage: KEF

Vienna Symphony Orchestra – Swan Lake (Tchaikovsky)
KEF Blades: signature airiness and wide soundstage
AA ELX Titan: narrow soundstage and a tad muffled, highs reduced
Advantage: KEF

State Russian Symphony Orchestra – William Tell Overture (Rossini)
KEF Blades: three-dimension sound, clarity in overtones of instruments
AA ELX Titan: two-dimensional sound, less clarity
Advantage: KEF

Summary: KEF presented preferable in seven tests, AA presented preferable in three with one tie. The general trend was that the more sophisticated the recording or instrumentation (i.e., classical orchestration), the KEF Blades outperformed the AA ELX Titan Towers. Where the recordings were older or less sophisticated, or there was less dynamic difference between instruments, the AA ELX Towers with dome tweeter easily held their own. The one constant between the KEFS and AAs is the width of the soundstage and the general spaciousness of the mix. This generally worked to the KEFs’ advantage, but not in every case. Given the vast difference in price, the aesthetic appearance of the KEF Blades and its superior performance on highest-quality recordings would have to be critically important to the purchaser.

KEF Blade 2 Meta versus Ascend Acoustics ELX Ribbon Tower

Boz Scaggs – Payday
KEF Blades: Organs presented very distinct
AA ELX Ribbon: Midrange prominent, comparable high frequencies, vocals clear
Advantage: Neither

The Carpenters – Yesterday Once More
KEF Blades: more emphasis on low frequencies at the expense of vocals, maintained a wide soundstage on an older recording.
AA ELX Ribbon: prominent vocals, high frequencies more forward in mix.
Advantage: AA

Billy Joel – Just The Way You Are
KEF Blades: found the vocals to be a tad muddy, saxophone was clear and crisp
AA ELX Ribbon: spaciest reproduction yet for AA, vocals and high percussion very clear.
Advantage: AA

Audioslave – Cochise
KEF Blades: heavy low frequencies, a bit muddying of the high-frequency clarity
AA ELX Ribbon: clean vocals, distinct separation between instruments
Advantage: AA

Christopher Cross – Ride Like The Wind
KEF Blades: excellent sound dispersion, very airy and distinct reverb detail
AA ELX Ribbon: high frequency identical to KEF, very compact sound, better vocals
Advantage: KEF (barely)

Depeche Mode – Enjoy The Silence
KEF Blades: keyboards very distinct and prominent
AA ELX Ribbon: frequencies balanced well, crisp and airy, prominent midrange, first example of superior soundstage to KEFs.
Advantage: AA

Dire Straits – So Far Away
KEF Blades: prominent and clear guitar, background organ very discernable
AA ELX Ribbon: Highs prominent, vocals/snare/drums/backing vocals distinct
Advantage: neither

Gorillaz – Feel Good Inc.
KEF Blades: typical wide soundstage, very balanced frequencies
AA ELX Ribbon: tight, punchy narrow midrange, good response in high frequencies
Advantage: KEF

Johnny Hiland – Barnyard Breakdown
KEF Blades: prominent low frequencies muddying the mids and highs a bit
AA ELX Ribbon: better overall mix of frequencies, clearer guitars
Advantage: AA

Summary: With the substitution of the ribbon tweeter for the dome tweeter in the Ascend Acoustics ELX Towers, the Ascends presented more preferable in five tests, the KEFs more preferable in two tests, and two tests tied. While the KEF Blades remained constant from the first battery of tests, the second battery used a ribbon tweeter in the AA ELX Towers. This clearly made a difference in the overall sound quality of the Ascends. The ribbon tweeter is one of the highest-quality tweeters available at any price point and it had the practical effect of negating any sound-quality advantage the KEFs. The purchaser must then decide how important the aesthetics and soundstage are, as there is very little other difference between the brand models.

 

[Reddoc]

I saw that the below was shared on Ascend's forum. It seems like this was done sighted rather than blind, but the subjective impact that changing tweeters made was interesting to read. It would be helpful to know how loudly the music tracks were being played, though. These speakers would seem to be close enough in tonality and overall sound quality that I wonder if more differentiation would be apparent at the higher end of the volume scale.

Ascend forum post.

Are there published graphs of the difference in FR and directivity of the dome vs ribbon tweeter?
Also, how were the two speakers sited in the room? Were they positioned "equally" ie same spot, or were they each placed in the optimal position for their individual characteristics.
Thanks for the post - blind testing would be super-interesting as well

 

[mj30250]

Are there published graphs of the difference in FR and directivity of the dome vs ribbon tweeter?
Also, how were the two speakers sited in the room? Were they positioned "equally" ie same spot, or were they each placed in the optimal position for their individual characteristics.
Thanks for the post - blind testing would be super-interesting as well

The speaker setup is described in earlier posts if you click through the link and go back a bit you'll find them. And yes, Klippel NFS measurements are available for both the dome and ribbon towers on Ascend's main website as well as spinorama.org.

 

[Reddoc]

The speaker setup is described in earlier posts if you click through the link and go back a bit you'll find them. And yes, Klippel NFS measurements are available for both the dome and ribbon towers on Ascend's main website as well as spinorama.org.

Thanks- I still couldn't work out if the Ascends were in their best spot but I appreciate the link.
I forgot that this test included high-passing the Ascends and using a Rhythmik F12 for the low bits- makes sense now!

 

[Ricardojoa]

I think the blade are expensive mainly due to the labor cost of making those cabinets.

 

[Mort]

Ribbon tweeter will sound better in an a/b test the same way saltier or sweeter tastes better in a single a/b.

But long term, the extra reverb isn't preferred.

 

[mj30250]

Ribbon tweeter will sound better in an a/b test the same way saltier or sweeter tastes better in a single a/b.

But long term, the extra reverb isn't preferred.

While I agree that reasonably controlled long-term listening has advantages over instant A/Bing, there is far too much variability in speaker design, driver integration, room/setup, preference, etc to make such a sweeping statement.

I've used (and still use) domes for many years including several excellent examples such as Revel PerformaBes, Neumann KH 150s, and Ascend's own Titan tweeters. The ELX ribbons have been in place for three years now and they are still my favorite speakers by an appreciable margin, particularly when it comes to higher frequency reproduction. I even swapped the Revels back in place for about a week just to see if I was succumbing to some bias in the manner you described. Upon the ribbons' return, my opinions remained the same.

 

[Beave]

Ribbon tweeter will sound better in an a/b test the same way saltier or sweeter tastes better in a single a/b.

But long term, the extra reverb isn't preferred.

Extra reverb? Do you mean more sidewall reflections due to the wider horizontal treble dispersion of a ribbon tweeter? Take a look at the horizontal dispersion plots for the Ascend ELX with ribbon versus with dome. There isn't much difference. It's the vertical dispersion where they differ the most.

 

[Mort]

Extra reverb? Huh?

Wider directivity of the ribbon tweeter is adding in-room reverberation to the sound.

 

[Beave]

Wider directivity of the ribbon tweeter is adding in-room reverberation to the sound.

Sorry, I was editing my post as you replied. See my edited post for more detail. The ribbon doesn't really have wider horizontal dispersion.

Ribbon:

Dome: