KEF Blade Two Meta Review

[MattHooper]

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.”

I would certainly endorse that. Makes tons of sense.

On the other hand, again speaking personally, I have found that it’s not hard to learn a reviewers “ code” as it were, and I have found insights in plenty of subjective reviews that I would not have gotten if I had tried to divine the sound of the speaker purely from the measurements. And also insights that I would not have gotten from those who tend to rely on measurements.

Different approaches for different folks.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

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.

This is literally what every other hi-fi forum on the entire internet and in print has to offer.

But you're hanging out here, the one place that does things differently, the place that exists to eschew subjectivity and focus on measurable data and repeatable tests. It's like going to your town's sole kosher deli and persistently announcing "yeah, love the pastrami on rye, great stuff, but I'd like it better with some cheese, y'know? Can't you just add a little?".

It's not even that you're wrong (there's nothing at all wrong with your enjoying subjective impression writeups, of course, and a pastrami sandwich is great with a little cheese ), it's that it's antithetical to the site's entire raison d'etre and thus perverse. You can just go next door and buy some cheese at the bodega and nobody will be the wiser.

 

[MattHooper]

This is literally what every other hi-fi forum on the entire internet and in print has to offer.

Most of them do not offer measurements, nor educated discussion of measurements.
That’s what I can get here. (As well as having a break from the pseudoscience and woo woo on the other sites).

But you're hanging out here, the one place that does things differently, the place that exists to eschew subjectivity and focus on measurable data and repeatable tests. It's like going to your town's sole kosher deli and persistently announcing "yeah, love the pastrami on rye, great stuff, but I'd like it better with some cheese, y'know? Can't you just add a little?".

It's not even that you're wrong (there's nothing at all wrong with your enjoying subjective impression writeups, of course, and a pastrami sandwich is great with a little cheese ), it's that it's antithetical to the site's entire raison d'etre and thus perverse. You can just go next door and buy some cheese at the bodega and nobody will be the wiser.

I think you are not quite correct about the nature of this website.

I’d say the overall theme of ASR is disseminating and discussing accurate information about audio gear, and in general being a place of education about audio gear.

If one assumes that every single visitor to ASR already knows everything that needs to be known about loudspeaker design and loudspeaker measurements, and everyone can fully interpret every measurement predicting all the subjective consequences with precision… there wouldn’t be much need for part of what this site does. Amir’s goal of educating people is clear from his video content as well as much of the written content.

And as I’ve already written, if measurements don’t correlate to subjective consequences they are essentially pointless. You can’t just forget half of the equation…. The whole point of measurements. Some people have the experience to know what speakers will sound like from just measurements, many people will not. That’s why I always think it’s worth subjective comment on the sonic consequences of the measurements.

It wouldn’t be spreading misinformation or pseudoscience for somebody to acquire KEF Blades, measure them, and also include some comment about their experience with the speakers, as Erin does. Much of the appreciation aimed at Erin is in how he correlates the subjective effects of different speaker design designs to their measurements. That’s when plenty of audiophiles truly feel they are being educated.

And even just skipping that and adding any comment at all in terms of experience with the speakers, eg, “ These are the best sounding speakers I’ve heard” or placing them wherever they might sit in that person’s experience, would to add some flavour IMO, without anybody having to take it as some holy writ.

There’s nothing wrong with adding subjective impressions here with the obvious caveats attending such impressions. And plenty of people give subjective impressions of loudspeakers on this forum, given and received with well-known caveats.

That’s what distinguishes this place from something like hydrogenaudio, which pretty much bans any type of subjective impressions or descriptions.

 

[ralph]

Thanks for the review!

I didn't expect these speakers to be that good - if I would have the space and money left for it I would be tempted.

P.S: Would be great to see more reviews of passive speakers available in Europe...

 

[Purité Audio]

Most of them do not offer measurements, nor educated discussion of measurements.
That’s what I can get here. (As well as having a break from the pseudoscience and woo woo on the other sites).



I think you are not quite correct about the nature of this website.

I’d say the overall theme of ASR is disseminating and discussing accurate information about audio gear, and in general being a place of education about audio gear.

If one assumes that every single visitor to ASR already knows everything that needs to be known about loudspeaker design and loudspeaker measurements, and everyone can fully interpret every measurement predicting all the subjective consequences with precision… there wouldn’t be much need for part of what this site does. Amir’s goal of educating people is clear from his video content as well as much of the written content.

And as I’ve already written, if measurements don’t correlate to subjective consequences they are essentially pointless. You can’t just forget half of the equation…. The whole point of measurements. Some people have the experience to know what speakers will sound like from just measurements, many people will not. That’s why I always think it’s worth subjective comment on the sonic consequences of the measurements.

It wouldn’t be spreading misinformation or pseudoscience for somebody to acquire KEF Blades, measure them, and also include some comment about their experience with the speakers, as Erin does. Much of the appreciation aimed at Erin is in how he correlates the subjective effects of different speaker design designs to their measurements. That’s when plenty of audiophiles truly feel they are being educated.

And even just skipping that and adding any comment at all in terms of experience with the speakers, eg, “ These are the best sounding speakers I’ve heard” or placing them wherever they might sit in that person’s experience, would to add some flavour IMO, without anybody having to take it as some holy writ.

There’s nothing wrong with adding subjective impressions here with the obvious caveats attending such impressions. And plenty of people give subjective impressions of loudspeakers on this forum, given and received with well-known caveats.

That’s what distinguishes this place from something like hydrogenaudio, which pretty much bans any type of subjective impressions or descriptions.

I believe you have to think of transparent designs as ‘transparent’ and that designs which are flawed will have a ‘sound’.
Transparency is the reference and everything else compared to that.
Keith

 

[MattHooper]

I believe you have to think of transparent designs as ‘transparent’ and that designs which are flawed will have a ‘sound’.

On the idea that there is nothing to discuss sonically about a well measuring speaker like the KEF, I’ve already given the arguments for why I think that is too simplistic.

Put on certain Johnny Cash recordings. Listen to them on a loudspeaker that has a prominent boost between 100Hz-300Hz, and then listen to them on the neutral KEF Blades.

Johnny’s voice will sound one way on one speaker and will sound another way on the other speaker. And that is worth noting and describing. Simply saying “ the KEF is transparent” does it relay those differences.
Calling something “ transparent” does not inform about the real world subjective consequences - it doesn’t in of itself tell you why you would want to choose the transparent speaker. For that, you’re going to want to appeal to the subjective benefits.

Floyd Toole has practically made a career of explaining the value of neutral loudspeakers in terms of their subjective character and subjective sonic benefits.

Transparency is the reference and everything else compared to that.

Even sticking to “ transparent speakers” doesn’t solve the issue I’m pointing to.
Precisely which loudspeaker represents the “ perfectly transparent” loudspeaker?

As far as I know, no perfect loudspeaker exists. And even among speakers that measure extremely neutral there’s going to be sonic variations. On plenty of music, a very neutral “ transparent” stand mounted speaker is going to sound different than a “ transparent” full range speaker that has a wider frequency response in the bass. And those subjective differences can be discerned and described.

And then you have the fact that generally neutral measuring loudspeakers can exhibit different dispersion patterns, which in real world listening conditions will tend to cause them to sound different from one another.
And those differences are worth detecting and describing.

So especially with loudspeakers you don’t really get much just from throwing around terms like “ transparent” - that just leaves all sorts of worthwhile subjective information off the table.

 

[Purité Audio]

Exactly you can say ( if you so choose) that the speaker with the pronounced mid bass adds a chestiness to Johnny Cash’s voice.
I believe that’s how they used to do it years ago, choosing a ‘reference’ design ( Quad ESL back then probably) and compare everything to that..
Keith

 

[pablolie]

I always find these passionate disputes about measurements and transparency in loudspeakers entertaining. First of all, because the perfect measuring loudspeaker in every measurement and every real world room just doesn't seem to exist.

But there are plenty that are very-very nice, and in my opinion if they measure very similarly there is no way they will not sound very similar IMHO. But what can happen is that a certain speaker measures great at a reasonable 86dB will start distorting if you push it to 96dB and beyond. So that could make a difference, for example. That's why a Blade will sound very different to an LS50 if you drive the LS50 beyond the SPL imposed by size, for one.

As to electronics, I have long given up on trying to hear differences between competently designed gear that strives for neutrality. And I'll repeat what I have always said - while at home I trend towards neutrality, I have been regularly seduced by equipment that is not, makes no excuses about it, and clearly was designed to enjoy certain types of music and infuse it with "warmth" aka boosting some mids and adding some pleasing distortion, perhaps.

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

Got to love ASR...When a speaker outright sucks, everyone just downvotes it and moves on, but if the speaker is absolutely stellar like this one, the discussion never ever ends about whether or not it's actually good.

Amazing!

 

[pablolie]

Got to love ASR...When a speaker outright sucks, everyone just downvotes it and moves on, but if the speaker is absolutely stellar like this one, the discussion never ever ends about whether or not it's actually good.

Amazing!

Maybe I haven't followed the topic closely enough, but it seemed to me the main objection was about whether they're worth forking out US$28k for. I'd never get into an argument about price, since pricing at this level is never based on COGS, but rather on "perceived value" to the buyer (per Adam Smith).

Anyone that objects to the Blade price would faint when they look at the Muon. :-D

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

Maybe I haven't followed the topic closely enough, but it seemed to me the main objection was about whether they're worth forking out US$28k for. I'd never get into an argument about price, since pricing at this level is never based on COGS, but rather on "perceived value" to the buyer (per Adam Smith).

Anyone that objects to the Blade price would faint when they look at the Muon. :-D

Price or specifically value will always be in the eye of the person whose money is in consideration.

But yes, if I ever had a budget to afford something like the Blade 2 Metas, I would seriously consider them, yet I would never consider the Muons even with an unlimited budget. Just not worth the difference (to me). Really strange to get into an argument over such a thing.

 

[Pearljam5000]

What's a better speaker than the Blade at around the same price?

 

[pablolie]

What's a better speaker than the Blade at around the same price?

I wasn't the one ever making such a claim But the Reference 5 was mentioned a few times, from what I followed. I for one am perfectly happy with the LS50 combined with a sub or two and xover at 70-80Hz. And they may well sound better overall in smaller rooms when one sits closer to them, I couldn't re-use my expensive towers that worker well in my previous listening room, once I downsized after divorce.

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

I wasn't the one ever making such a claim But the Reference 5 was mentioned a few times, from what I followed. I for one am perfectly happy with the LS50 combined with a sub or two and xover at 70-80Hz.

I imagine choosing between the Reference 5 and the Blade 2 Meta would really best be determined by how each speaker would interact with the listening space that they will be installed in. Each of the speakers has strengths and weaknesses against the other depending on room interaction, with one speaker's low frequency drivers front-firing while the other's side-firing.

 

[Pearljam5000]

I imagine choosing between the Reference 5 and the Blade 2 Meta would really best be determined by how each speaker would interact with the listening space that they will be installed in. Each of the speakers has strengths and weaknesses against the other depending on room interaction, with one speaker's low frequency drivers front-firing while the other's side-firing.

The Blade looks much cooler
There's no dilemma at all

 

[kyuu]

What's a better speaker than the Blade at around the same price?

Define "better". Really the only way you can get better in terms of performance, IMO, is wider directivity (so something like a Revel 328Be) if your preference runs that way (as research indicates is so for most people). Or if you need more bigger SPLs, but that would only really come into play for venues that are not a typical domestic space I think.

 

[pablolie]

The Blade looks much cooler
There's no dilemma at all

I'll take mine in racing red, please. :-D

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Put on certain Johnny Cash recordings. Listen to them on a loudspeaker that has a prominent boost between 100Hz-300Hz, and then listen to them on the neutral KEF Blades.

It is easy to insert a 100Hz-300Hz boost on the Blades and appreciate the effect but that is not going to make the two sound the same.

And I do keep a small library of such tweak EQs on tap, just for fun.

 

[MattHooper]

First of all, because the perfect measuring loudspeaker in every measurement and every real world room just doesn't seem to exist.

Exactly. In the real world, virtually no two loudspeaker set-ups are likely to sound precisely the same in the real world. Or at least such a sample would be so vanishing small that they would be massive outliers.
That leaves the subjective differences able to be described and discussed. One can even talk about how the KEF Blades are interacting sonically with a particular room, since without room correction is highly unlikely to retain perfect linearity.

It’s fine to use the concept of “ transparency” as a sort of Northstar guide to what you ultimately want to achieve, even if speakers currently fall short. It’s even fine to apply the term if you want to label whatever essentially-frequency-response-neutral speakers you want as transparent (and somebody’s going to ask what your criteria of transparency is).

But the idea that “transparency” simply obviates any discussion of the subjective consequences of listening to a loudspeaker, even like the KEFs, is untenable.

 

[Purité Audio]

Really fine measuring loudspeakers sound pretty similar/identical in terms of tone and timbre, where they differ is bass extension, directivity and their in room targets which with contemporary designs can be adjusted to approximate one another’s.
Keith