KEF Blade Two Meta Review

[Oddball]

Well I have 4 subs so yeah, these would not be impressive - especially for the price.

 

[Ciobi69]

Well I have 4 subs so yeah, these would not be impressive - especially for the price.

You don’t pay for bass only, you pay for the brand first of all, then its one of the best enginered speaker available and that is enough, i bought them used for less that hald the retail , still a ton of money , commercial speakers never been extreme , you got to go diy if you want full range performance , that is why subwoofer esist and not only for pressure but for room nulls ,

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

The relevant measurement was posted exactly one page ago, here.

I'll say this about bass, and I think this is something that a lot of people on ASR don't realize. Bass frequency response does not tell you everything. You also need to look at the time response, and the time response depends on your room. And maybe also your speaker.

View attachment 468406

Right now, I have 3 DSP filters and I am showing you the bass response. In blue, we have the speakers high passed at 50Hz, and the subs low passed at 50Hz. In yellow, the speakers are run full range, and the subs are low passed at 80Hz - meaning there is a substantial overlap between 20Hz - 80Hz that the subs and speakers are reproducing. In magenta, the subs are off, and the speakers are run full range. I equalized all the bass response of each filter so that it is as flat as possible.

If we ignore the magenta curve (no subs) for a moment, you will see that the blue and yellow curves are almost the same. Maybe the yellow curve (speakers full range and subs low passed) has a little bit less bass. Not so, when you actually listen to the filter, the bass has a certain punch and impact which is more prominent than the other DSP settings.

View attachment 468408View attachment 468409

The spectrogram tells you why. If you look closely, there is more energy between 40Hz - 90Hz on the spectro on the right - IOW the bass "hangs around" just that bit longer. This is enough to make the bass feel more powerful.

In my case, the difference was produced by different DSP settings / XO choices. But if those KEF's are placed in a "dry" sounding room, the bass will seem subjectively less, even if it has the same frequency response. The short message: the Klippel measurement tells you that KEF's are capable of producing bass frequencies. But the subjective experience of whether there is "enough" bass also depends on bass decay, and bass decay depends on your room.

Could you say that the blue setting is theoraticly better, but the yellow more pleasant [or depending of the recording or if you listen to, for example, a double bass or an electric bass (timbre)]? And how would it be if you used eq to try to compensate for the difference in decay?

 

[Oddball]

The relevant measurement was posted exactly one page ago, here.

I'll say this about bass, and I think this is something that a lot of people on ASR don't realize. Bass frequency response does not tell you everything. You also need to look at the time response, and the time response depends on your room. And maybe also your speaker.

View attachment 468406

Right now, I have 3 DSP filters and I am showing you the bass response. In blue, we have the speakers high passed at 50Hz, and the subs low passed at 50Hz. In yellow, the speakers are run full range, and the subs are low passed at 80Hz - meaning there is a substantial overlap between 20Hz - 80Hz that the subs and speakers are reproducing. In magenta, the subs are off, and the speakers are run full range. I equalized all the bass response of each filter so that it is as flat as possible.

If we ignore the magenta curve (no subs) for a moment, you will see that the blue and yellow curves are almost the same. Maybe the yellow curve (speakers full range and subs low passed) has a little bit less bass. Not so, when you actually listen to the filter, the bass has a certain punch and impact which is more prominent than the other DSP settings.

View attachment 468408View attachment 468409

The spectrogram tells you why. If you look closely, there is more energy between 40Hz - 90Hz on the spectro on the right - IOW the bass "hangs around" just that bit longer. This is enough to make the bass feel more powerful.

In my case, the difference was produced by different DSP settings / XO choices. But if those KEF's are placed in a "dry" sounding room, the bass will seem subjectively less, even if it has the same frequency response. The short message: the Klippel measurement tells you that KEF's are capable of producing bass frequencies. But the subjective experience of whether there is "enough" bass also depends on bass decay, and bass decay depends on your room.

KEFs are completely out of my price range so could not really care about them.

I do like the idea of overlapping subs and mains. That is really the only way to go if you want to correct your mains. ART might bring some news to this but to be ween.

 

[Sokel]

Sometimes we get caught by the gear alone forgetting the big picture.
And we think stuff in general, like bigger rooms, etc.

So here's a big-ish room, mine (about 260 m³ volume)
Look what it does to late IACC (no EQ, no nothing) :

Imagine what it was before treatment.

It's nice talking about nice pieces of gear.
But they don't exist on their own.

 

[TNT]

Stunning measurement performance.

//

 

[Audio Science Pal]

View attachment 467404
KEF’s high-end flagship — the Blade Two Meta.

Interesting looking speakers. And there are a lot of color choices! The pictures posted by ASR forum members/ Blade owners are very attractive.

 

[MattHooper]

First of all, I’m very appreciative of @Nuyes contribution! That’s a whole bunch of work presented to the forum. Exactly the type of stuff this forum wants to see. And I find the measured performance to be quite amazing too!

I have to admit that one side of my brain is joining the chorus of many non-ASR audiophiles who would say “ OK… so how did it sound?”

When audiophiles outside ASR come away with the impression “ all they care about and discuss is measurements” … this is probably the type of stuff that triggers them.

It can still feel a little alien to me to just have measurements presented with no comment whatsoever on the sound. I’m just so interested in people’s subjective experience - I’d love to know what it was like for the OP to listen to a large pair of practically full range loudspeakers, of that particular design, that measure so well.

This is why for me, even though Stereophile doesn’t own a Klippel, I still find the value in something like @Kal Rubinson ‘s Blades review.

I haven’t heard the blades yet only the LS 60.
But my local shop has the blades so hopefully some day…

 

[Hear Here]

Here you go...

The KEF Blades deliver a sound that’s pure velvet—smooth, liquid, and effortlessly airy. The mids bloom with an organic richness that feels almost tactile, while the highs shimmer with a crystalline delicacy, never harsh, always ethereal. Bass flows with a grounded authority, yet dances with nimble grace. The soundscape isn’t just wide; it’s a three-dimensional canvas of sonic magic, where every note breathes with life. Listening becomes less about hearing and more about experiencing the music’s true essence.

Where did you read that subjective opinion on the Blades? It's not on the opening post of this thread that merely says:
Final Thoughts
Blade Two Meta doesn’t compromise between stunning design and top-tier performance.
In any reasonably sized listening room, I believe it will deliver exceptional results — no matter where you place it.

Maybe a quote from the Conclusion paragraph a Stereophile or other review!

I'd have been more convinced by a longer description of the sound it delivers, playing different genres of music and expressed by an experienced and respected professional reviewer who had thoroughly tested it and compared it with its rivals. No criticism of the review or reviewer here, apart from the paucily of how it acually sounds!

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Where did you read that subjective opinion on the Blades?

(woosh)

 

[Purité Audio]

First of all, I’m very appreciative of @Nuyes contribution! That’s a whole bunch of work presented to the forum. Exactly the type of stuff this forum wants to see. And I find the measured performance to be quite amazing too!

I have to admit that one side of my brain is joining the chorus of many non-ASR audiophiles who would say “ OK… so how did it sound?”

When audiophiles outside ASR come away with the impression “ all they care about and discuss is measurements” … this is probably the type of stuff that triggers them.

It can still feel a little alien to me to just have measurements presented with no comment whatsoever on the sound. I’m just so interested in people’s subjective experience - I’d love to know what it was like for the OP to listen to a large pair of practically full range loudspeakers, of that particular design, that measure so well.

This is why for me, even though Stereophile doesn’t own a Klippel, I still find the value in something like @Kal Rubinson ‘s Blades review.

I haven’t heard the blades yet only the LS 60.
But my local shop has the blades so hopefully some day…

Really fine measuring loudspeakers sound far more similar than alike, imho the only differences apart from the obvious max spl and bass extension are their directivity and in room target.
Keith

 

[Chagall]

Where did you read that subjective opinion on the Blades? It's not on the opening post of this thread that merely says:
Final Thoughts
Blade Two Meta doesn’t compromise between stunning design and top-tier performance.
In any reasonably sized listening room, I believe it will deliver exceptional results — no matter where you place it.

Maybe a quote from the Conclusion paragraph a Stereophile or other review!

I'd have been more convinced by a longer description of the sound it delivers, playing different genres of music and expressed by an experienced and respected professional reviewer who had thoroughly tested it and compared it with its rivals. No criticism of the review or reviewer here, apart from the paucily of how it acually sounds!

Read @staticV3 comment for the "aha moment".

Then ask yourself if i play different movie genres does it make a difference?

 

[terryforsythe]

an experienced and respected professional reviewer

Outside of this forum, there are some professional reviewers I watch for entertainment purposes, but I know of only one that provides what I consider to be a thorough and accurate speaker review. Here is his review:

 

[MattHooper]

Really fine measuring loudspeakers sound far more similar than alike, imho the only differences apart from the obvious max spl and bass extension are their directivity and in room target.
Keith

Yes, fair comment Keith.

I’m not arguing that the OP should have supplied subjective impressions, only registering that I personally would ask what he thought of listening to them.

A great pair of speakers produces a listening experience, and that is still something somebody can describe.

For instance, I got a real kick out of Erin’s review of the Blades. Not only did it supply great measurements, but as Erin has listened to and measured so many different loudspeakers, it was fun seeing his enthusiasm and description about what it was like listening to a speaker that performs so well in so many ways compared to other loudspeakers - the type of subjective benefits you get from this , and also pointing to the subjective effects of the particular dispersion pattern, etc.

 

[MattHooper]

I find this comment to be missing the point…

If the speaker measures accurately, then it will reproduce your music accurately.

Yes… but what does that sound like?
Why should anybody care for accurate sound?

Any selection of well recorded music will sound different through the KEF Blades versus countless other less accurate less well designed speakers, right ? Thats the point of such a design, and those differences are worth exploring.

Not everybody has heard a full range speaker as accurate as the KEF blades. There’s a million different speakers out there that sound different. A music through a full range active speaker is still producing a subjective experience - that’s what we care about. If the accuracy of the speaker had no effect on the subjective perception of the sound versus a poorly measuring speaker, there would be no reason to care about how well it measures.
(not to mention even among actual speakers, there are variables affecting subjective perception, such as dispersion characteristics).

So there’s still plenty that could be said about what a speaker like the KEF blade brings to the listening experience. It’s going to produce for instance a well recorded symphonic track, or jazz track, or even an electronic track different from any number of coloured speakers, and such comparisons can be illuminating. In fact is going to produce different sonic impressions even against other accurate speakers.

KEF’s smaller LS60 floorstanders are also a very accurate speaker (and could be made even more accurate with DSP adjustments).

But the Blades are still likely capable of producing a sonic presentation that goes beyond the LS60. Otherwise, what would be the point of purchasing Blades? So just saying of any speaker “meh… it’s accurate… what do you want me to say?” doesn’t cover this ground..

So this idea that there’s just really nothing to talk about whatsoever in terms of the subjective effects of a loudspeaker like these Blades is bizarre.

No one's asking about the emotional impact that a certain TV delivers for example.

As a long time home theatre buff and member of the display/home theatre focused AVSForum… I can point out you couldn’t be more wrong.

People are constantly, enthusiastically talking about the subjective impact of different TVs and projectors. That’s the whole point of enthusiasts caring about the differences!

If it has accurate color and luminance, then it'll faithfully reproduce whatever you're watching.

Yes and there’s going to be a subjective difference between watching a display that has been accurately calibrated versus one that hasn’t being optimized through calibration.

That’s why Home theatre forms enthusiast and professionals explain all the time the benefits of an accurately calibrated display.
For instance, if your display has a strong red or blue push, giving most skin tones an unnatural reddish or blueish hue, you will find skin tones to generally look more natural on a calibrated display.

Or very often, as it’s a case in projectors as well, a display that is not accurately calibrated may have a crushed gamma response, and or poorly calibrated black levels. When you properly calibrate the display for accuracy, very often you will see more detail in the image, for instance, and darker shadow areas, and the black floor will go lower, expanding contrast, the overall subjective impression across lots of different content could be a more natural looking image, richer, and more dimensional.

The subjective impression aspects that you can gain from an accurately calibrated display are multifarious, and very much worth explaining and expressing, as Home theatre fans have been doing for ages.

This is why I’ve had every flat screen projector. I’ve owned professionally calibrated. Yes I could just say “ now the display is accurate” but there is also subjective benefits that can be described.

The same goes for loudspeakers. It is worth describing how a very accurate loudspeaker like the KEF can reveal sonic information about nature of recordings in a different way from other less capable loudspeakers. The measurements don’t just tell you that in isolation. That that’s where correlating the measurements to their subjective consequences comes in, which is where descriptions of subjective experience comes in.

Same deal with speakers. They're tools, nothing more.

Well, you can put it in a perfunctory way like that… but I think it leaves a hell of a lot off the table worth discussing, and for me it’s a rather arid view. It seems suggest one denudes the hobby of enthusiasm.
If I had been using, say, some stand mounted speaker that suffered certain colourations and I had recently received a pair of KEF blades as replacement, I’d be going through all my beloved music listening to it again, noting what a speaker like the blades brings to the presentation. And if somebody asked what I thought of my new speakers I would doubtless very enthusiastically describe them as kick ass, producing sound way better than I was used to. It would feel very odd to simply reply “eh… they’re just a tool and nothing more…”

But to each his own.

 

[BrooklynNick]

Yes… but what does that sound like?

Subjective impressions of speakers can be fun to read, but the problem is that they can tell you what it sounds like in their room, but not what it will sound like in yours. There can be some value in impressions from people who have well treated rooms and who review a lot of different speakers (giving their comparisons some meaning by having a baseline).

 

[Chagall]

Yes, fair comment Keith.

I’m not arguing that the OP should have supplied subjective impressions, only registering that I personally would ask what he thought of listening to them.

A great pair of speakers produces a listening experience, and that is still something somebody can describe.

For instance, I got a real kick out of Erin’s review of the Blades. Not only did it supply great measurements, but as Erin has listened to and measured so many different loudspeakers, it was fun seeing his enthusiasm and description about what it was like listening to a speaker that performs so well in so many ways compared to other loudspeakers - the type of subjective benefits you get from this , and also pointing to the subjective effects of the particular dispersion pattern, etc.

There is a difference between a video review that needs to engage the audience and a written matter of fact review.

This is what Erin wrote for Blades:

See video linked above for subjective and objective analysis. A summarized transcript is provided below:
This is the best speaker I’ve heard to date. And it’s not even close. It’s far beyond any sonic experience I’ve had. The KEF Blade 2 Meta are not cheap but the performance is there, objectively speaking.
Highlights:

• Exceptional sound quality and objective measurements
• Incredible on-axis linearity and off-axis is top notch not just horizontally but vertically as well
• Rounded baffle eliminates diffraction issues
• Coaxial design and point source capabilities provide a very consistent radiation pattern both horizontally and vertically
• Deep bass with an F3 = 31Hz and F10 = 26Hz
• Lowest of the low distortion levels with negligible Instantaneous and long-term compression, rivaling the best of the best I’ve measured thus far
• Sleek design and customizable colors

You might argue that if he didn't have a video review, he would have done a subjective analysis in his written review. Ok, sure - but I can bet you that it would closely follow objective data with no added velvetness.

 

[Rõlnnbacke]

I find this comment to be missing the point…



Yes… but what does that sound like?
Why should anybody care for accurate sound?

Any selection of well recorded music will sound different through the KEF Blades versus countless other less accurate less well designed speakers, right ? Thats the point of such a design, and those differences are worth exploring.

Not everybody has heard a full range speaker as accurate as the KEF blades. There’s a million different speakers out there that sound different. A music through a full range active speaker is still producing a subjective experience - that’s what we care about. If the accuracy of the speaker had no effect on the subjective perception of the sound versus a poorly measuring speaker, there would be no reason to care about how well it measures.
(not to mention even among actual speakers, there are variables affecting subjective perception, such as dispersion characteristics).

So there’s still plenty that could be said about what a speaker like the KEF blade brings to the listening experience. It’s going to produce for instance a well recorded symphonic track, or jazz track, or even an electronic track different from any number of coloured speakers, and such comparisons can be illuminating. In fact is going to produce different sonic impressions even against other accurate speakers.

KEF’s smaller LS60 floorstanders are also a very accurate speaker (and could be made even more accurate with DSP adjustments).

But the Blades are still likely capable of producing a sonic presentation that goes beyond the LS60. Otherwise, what would be the point of purchasing Blades? So just saying of any speaker “meh… it’s accurate… what do you want me to say?” doesn’t cover this ground..

So this idea that there’s just really nothing to talk about whatsoever in terms of the subjective effects of a loudspeaker like these Blades is bizarre.




As a long time home theatre buff and member of the display/home theatre focused AVSForum… I can point out you couldn’t be more wrong.

People are constantly, enthusiastically talking about the subjective impact of different TVs and projectors. That’s the whole point of enthusiasts caring about the differences!



Yes and there’s going to be a subjective difference between watching a display that has been accurately calibrated versus one that hasn’t being optimized through calibration.

That’s why Home theatre forms enthusiast and professionals explain all the time the benefits of an accurately calibrated display.
For instance, if your display has a strong red or blue push, giving most skin tones an unnatural reddish or blueish hue, you will find skin tones to generally look more natural on a calibrated display.

Or very often, as it’s a case in projectors as well, a display that is not accurately calibrated may have a crushed gamma response, and or poorly calibrated black levels. When you properly calibrate the display for accuracy, very often you will see more detail in the image, for instance, and darker shadow areas, and the black floor will go lower, expanding contrast, the overall subjective impression across lots of different content could be a more natural looking image, richer, and more dimensional.

The subjective impression aspects that you can gain from an accurately calibrated display are multifarious, and very much worth explaining and expressing, as Home theatre fans have been doing for ages.

This is why I’ve had every flat screen projector. I’ve owned professionally calibrated. Yes I could just say “ now the display is accurate” but there is also subjective benefits that can be described.

The same goes for loudspeakers. It is worth describing how a very accurate loudspeaker like the KEF can reveal sonic information about nature of recordings in a different way from other less capable loudspeakers. The measurements don’t just tell you that in isolation. That that’s where correlating the measurements to their subjective consequences comes in, which is where descriptions of subjective experience comes in.



Well, you can put it in a perfunctory way like that… but I think it leaves a hell of a lot off the table worth discussing, and for me it’s a rather arid view. It seems suggest one denudes the hobby of enthusiasm.
If I had been using, say, some stand mounted speaker that suffered certain colourations and I had recently received a pair of KEF blades as replacement, I’d be going through all my beloved music listening to it again, noting what a speaker like the blades brings to the presentation. And if somebody asked what I thought of my new speakers I would doubtless very enthusiastically describe them as kick ass, producing sound way better than I was used to. It would feel very odd to simply reply “eh… they’re just a tool and nothing more…”

But to each his own.

In a sense you agree with @staticV3, if you look at speakers of this kind of quality as "kick ass, well calibrated tools".

 

[MattHooper]

Subjective impressions of speakers can be fun to read, but the problem is that they can tell you what it sounds like in their room, but not what it will sound like in yours. There can be some value in impressions from people who have well treated rooms and who review a lot of different speakers (giving their comparisons some meaning by having a baseline).

Even if somebody is describing how a speaker sounds in their room - whether they’re having trouble getting it to sound good or not, and what issues they are noting, etc. - I find that interesting as well. I’m not always looking just for “ how would the speaker sound if I owned it” (though I find that I can get some inkling through certain subjective reports), but simply reading the experience of other audiophiles with their equipment is fun.

There is a difference between a video review that needs to engage the audience and a written matter of fact review.

Personally, I would appreciate a subjective impression portion in either.

This is what Erin wrote for Blades:

See video linked above for subjective and objective analysis. A summarized transcript is provided below:
This is the best speaker I’ve heard to date. And it’s not even close. It’s far beyond any sonic experience I’ve had.

There you go! As I’ve been saying - any speaker produces a subjective impression, and here Erin is it at least reporting that the objective performance of the Blades translates into a Sonic experience beyond anything he’s heard, which is fascinating given the number of speakers he’s familiar with.

Even that for me is a welcome addition to the objective measurements, because it’s saying that the measurements actually means something for the subjective experience.

But I would like to hear Erin go into even more detail….

The KEF Blade 2 Meta are not cheap but the performance is there, objectively speaking.
Highlights:

• Exceptional sound quality and objective measurements
• Incredible on-axis linearity and off-axis is top notch not just horizontally but vertically as well
• Rounded baffle eliminates diffraction issues
• Coaxial design and point source capabilities provide a very consistent radiation pattern both horizontally and vertically
• Deep bass with an F3 = 31Hz and F10 = 26Hz
• Lowest of the low distortion levels with negligible Instantaneous and long-term compression, rivaling the best of the best I’ve measured thus far

That’s all cool… but none of it describes what it sounds like. The only reason to care about any of the above has to do with the subjective consequences. And if the subjective consequences are left out then it is hardly informative in that respect.

Now, if somebody is well schooled in loudspeaker design, and perhaps has experience correlating all these type of different design parameters to their subjective consequences, then that person could get an inkling from the passage above as to the subjective consequences of the Blades.
Or they could look at the more detailed suite of measurements and if they are experienced enough, they can get a pretty good idea of what the Blades sound like. The point being, even in that case the measurements only tell somebody how a speaker sound versus another speaker if they are already familiar with the subjective consequences of speaker designs, and measurements.

But I would suggest that many if not most audiophiles do not have that level of experience to simply look at complex suites of measurements and divine precisely how any loudspeaker will sound from those measurements.

THAT is especially where the subjective portion becomes quite valuable. This is where somebody who knows about speaker design and measurements can interpret all of that to explain the subjective consequences - so people can understand the relevance of the measurements. What’s a significant midbass hump going to impose on lots of music that a more neutral frequency response won’t? What will be the effects of a recessed mid range compared to a neutral mid range?
What can be the subjective effect of a 4db peak between 2k and 4K - what type of music will that show up in and what will it sound like compared to a neutral speaker in that range? Etc..

And this is what Erin tries to bring to his audience and educating people about the subjective consequences of loudspeaker, designs, and measurements. And he is thanked daily for this by his audience.

I think some people around here forget that not everybody can just look at a bunch of measurements and know precisely how loudspeaker will sound with music. And just saying “ well it measures neutral” isn’t terribly informative in that scenario.

 

[Chagall]

Even if somebody is describing how a speaker sounds in their room - whether they’re having trouble getting it to sound good or not, and what issues they are noting, etc. - I find that interesting as well. I’m not always looking just for “ how would the speaker sound if I owned it” (though I find that I can get some inkling through certain subjective reports), but simply reading the experience of other audiophiles with their equipment is fun.



Personally, I would appreciate a subjective impression portion in either.




There you go! As I’ve been saying - any speaker produces a subjective impression, and here Erin is it at least reporting that the objective performance of the Blades translates into a Sonic experience beyond anything he’s heard, which is fascinating given the number of speakers he’s familiar with.

Even that for me is a welcome addition to the objective measurements, because it’s saying that the measurements actually means something for the subjective experience.

But I would like to hear Erin go into even more detail….




That’s all cool… but none of it describes what it sounds like. The only reason to care about any of the above has to do with the subjective consequences. And if the subjective consequences are left out then it is hardly informative in that respect.

Now, if somebody is well schooled in loudspeaker design, and perhaps has experience correlating all these type of different design parameters to their subjective consequences, then that person could get an inkling from the passage above as to the subjective consequences of the Blades.
Or they could look at the more detailed suite of measurements and if they are experienced enough, they can get a pretty good idea of what the Blades sound like. The point being, even in that case the measurements only tell somebody how a speaker sound versus another speaker if they are already familiar with the subjective consequences of speaker designs, and measurements.

But I would suggest that many if not most audiophiles do not have that level of experience to simply look at complex suites of measurements and divine precisely how any loudspeaker will sound from those measurements.

THAT is especially where the subjective portion becomes quite valuable. This is where somebody who knows about speaker design and measurements can interpret all of that to explain the subjective consequences - so people can understand the relevance of the measurements. What’s a significant midbass hump going to impose on lots of music that a more neutral frequency response won’t? What will be the effects of a recessed mid range compared to a neutral mid range?
What can be the subjective effect of a 4db peak between 2k and 4K - what type of music will that show up in and what will it sound like compared to a neutral speaker in that range? Etc..

And this is what Erin tries to bring to his audience and educating people about the subjective consequences of loudspeaker, designs, and measurements. And he is thanked daily for this by his audience.

I think some people around here forget that not everybody can just look at a bunch of measurements and know precisely how loudspeaker will sound with music. And just saying “ well it measures neutral” isn’t terribly informative in that scenario.

I wonder how his subjective experience would change if he went in blind. Would the difference still be “not even close”?

To be clear, I think Erin is a great reviewer and a rare exception to the majority, but he isn’t immune to bias. He’s not the problem, though.

The real problem is basing purchasing decisions on subjective reviews by random reviewers that we have to decode, trying to guess what their descriptions of sound would actually mean in our own rooms.

Measurements are hard. I’m still learning how to read them, and I’ll always be learning, but it’s time well spent. Better that than trying to learn a reviewer’s personal “code.”