Fiberglass isn’t necessarily that woven material. It also applies to injection molded and/or compression molded thermoset resins and thermoplastics if they incorporate glass fillers. Think fiberglass boats, surfboards, Corvette body panels, etc.
-
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 Two Meta Review
- Thread starter Nuyes
- Start date
Makes sense it would be polyurethane foam. Considering the weight of the speakers, probably a very dense foam.
Digital_Thor
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Oh, I love the honesty, by using the word 'might', rather than claiming it as something you'd most certainly would hear
I bought a set of LS50 Meta to compare directly in my home, to all my DIY creativity, which also included some DIY with the dedicated midrange KEF coax from the 2018 version of KEF R3, that I was lucky to find on EBAY.
Actually, I find them so good, that I would buy a used set of KEF R3, and just take out the Coax for DIY.
You really have to sit calmly at home and listen - I mean - you need to come home and turn on the system, and just say "yes". Otherwise, something is off, and back to the drawing board you go
I read that coax drivers are much more immune to baffle edges, and we see that KEF reference gets by really well, with a very edgy box... no smoothness in that design - especially compared to Blade. So I put together a simple square box for the KEF coax, and made a rather simple cross-over in my DSP, that was crossed a little lower than the 2018 model(around 2800Hz) - meaning - closer to the Meta (around 2200Hz).
Then I used a bit of EQ on the LS50 Meta - from the official data and my own measurements - and compared them to my DIY KEF coax - non Meta.
Proper EQ, made from well-made data, gets you very, very close to the Meta "sound", with a 2018 non-Meta coax, IMO. Though, there is that difference, that the LS50 Meta, uses a bass/midrange, rather than the dedicated midrange that I have from the R3. So, take that into mind, because, maybe... just maybe, it makes a difference in your experience - I haven't tried, so I simply do not know if a KEF R3 Meta dedicated midrange, would be the king in this comparison.
And, this is yet another difference compared to the Blades, which have twice the "pressings" in the midrange cone, making them push the break-up further in frequency, without the rubber bonding/damping between the coil and cone, that they introduced in the 2018 versions. Maybe I remember wrongly, but I think that is the main difference + the more compact neo-magnet system, so that the rear of the cone can breathe more easily, much improved motor system in general and all sorts of little things, that just makes it stand out in every way.
What I'm trying to say is, that you have to have everything dialed in, before you can make any proper judgement between two or more speakers.
We change how we hear on the basis of sleep, food, health, age and so on. So you have to look into the aspects of enjoyment, longevity and everyday life - at the same time.
So when I come home now, and turn on my KEF DIY, then I just enjoy them, no matter if it's youtube, movies or music. Which to me is THAT difference, that makes the most lasting point, in choosing a speaker
Audio Science Pal
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2022
- Messages
- 324
- Likes
- 468
The "decoupled diaphragm" is an interesting feature.
from LS50 Meta brochure;
from Blade brochure;
decoupling interface appears to be incomplete in this cut-away illustration?
Digital_Thor
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Exactly... it was THE feature, that really made me aim for KEF coax, since almost every midrange driver has break-up problems, and the first time I really experienced it, was with an Accuton midrange, where I clearly heard the annoying distortion from the break-up right there in the middle of our most sensitive hearing range.
I tried the Dayton RS125, because it did not break-up before almost 10kHz, so crossing at 2kHz should totally steer clear of this, but this driver is better at bass, than higher frequency clarity - IMO.
Then there was the Satori MW13TX that was the best midrange for me so far, but the coax "sound" just fits me the best. The coherent way to have all upper frequencies coming from one place with such ease, is something I've always longed for, and it provides a very good sound stage in my room, like the sound comes from my TV and I almost forget that I have speakers.
I just really enjoy how hard-cones have a much smoother and more even off-axis than softer midrange cones. And I've always preferred the harder cones, since I experience that they provide more "clarity", which might just be, because of the better overall frequency response at all axis'.
But KEF seems to have mastered the combination of durability, sound quality, technical honesty, proper documentation and data, at a price where I have a chance
I tried the Dayton RS125, because it did not break-up before almost 10kHz, so crossing at 2kHz should totally steer clear of this, but this driver is better at bass, than higher frequency clarity - IMO.
Then there was the Satori MW13TX that was the best midrange for me so far, but the coax "sound" just fits me the best. The coherent way to have all upper frequencies coming from one place with such ease, is something I've always longed for, and it provides a very good sound stage in my room, like the sound comes from my TV and I almost forget that I have speakers.
I just really enjoy how hard-cones have a much smoother and more even off-axis than softer midrange cones. And I've always preferred the harder cones, since I experience that they provide more "clarity", which might just be, because of the better overall frequency response at all axis'.
But KEF seems to have mastered the combination of durability, sound quality, technical honesty, proper documentation and data, at a price where I have a chance
Digital_Thor
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I love dark blue, but the Garnet one is kinda nice too. I guess, if you can afford them, you also have a room suitable for them... At least you should try... Harder
ban25
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2022
- Messages
- 1,389
- Likes
- 1,545
Mine are Frosted Blue. They definitely catch your eye in the room!I love dark blue, but the Garnet one is kinda nice too. I guess, if you can afford them, you also have a room suitable for them... At least you should try... Harder
Champster
Member
I love my KEF Blade2 Metas. I got them new about 4 months ago after hearing them at a friend's house. I decided to sell my fantastic Revel Salon2s as the prices for Revel speakers seemed to be falling (after they discontinued the Salons) but also the prices inexplicably were falling for the wonderful F328Be as well. It makes no sense, but I found a great guy that is loving my Salons which enabled me to move on to the Blade2 metas.
I like using the foam plugs in my room (18’x16.5’x8’) and use a pair of KC92 subs, each located midway up my side walls. Without the plugs the Blade2s seem to load the room and excite the LF in an odd way.
I also swapped out a pair of Denafrips Thallo amps that I was using in passive bi-amp mode with a pair of Pass xa60.8 (mono) amps. This was a much bigger improvement than I would have imagined. Spatially, the Pass amps do a much better job floating images in their space, but the biggest change is the tightness of the bass out of the Blades. The biggest downside is the heat/power consumption from 2 Class A amps… The Thallo is a fantastic amp, but I am guessing the low impedance of the Blade is more demanding than they really like.
I like using the foam plugs in my room (18’x16.5’x8’) and use a pair of KC92 subs, each located midway up my side walls. Without the plugs the Blade2s seem to load the room and excite the LF in an odd way.
I also swapped out a pair of Denafrips Thallo amps that I was using in passive bi-amp mode with a pair of Pass xa60.8 (mono) amps. This was a much bigger improvement than I would have imagined. Spatially, the Pass amps do a much better job floating images in their space, but the biggest change is the tightness of the bass out of the Blades. The biggest downside is the heat/power consumption from 2 Class A amps… The Thallo is a fantastic amp, but I am guessing the low impedance of the Blade is more demanding than they really like.
Champster
Member
After much fussing, I see we have settled on a similar toe-in, which is very little.
Champster
Member
Sokel
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 11,866
- Likes
- 13,247
The AR at the bottom of the rack is one I know very well .
How do you manage subs, delays, etc?
Champster
Member
Good question! I forgot to mention I use a miniDSP Flex (sitting on top of the Rega turntable controller) to manage the subs using REW.
Sokel
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2021
- Messages
- 11,866
- Likes
- 13,247
On my short list to purchase when I can afford them
I want these!
Pearljam5000
Master Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2020
- Messages
- 8,107
- Likes
- 10,674
Does the Blade has unique Uni-Q driver or is it the same like other KEF speakers?
I believe Blade & Reference share the same Uni-Q driver.
Champster
Member
Does the KEF Blade meta have a unique uni-q driver that is different than other KEF speakers
From ChatGPT:
Yes — the KEF Blade Two Meta (and its sibling the Blade One Meta) do indeed use a version of the KEF Uni-Q driver that is different (i.e., more advanced) compared to many other KEF models. I’ll break it down how it’s different, and how it compares to other speakers in your system context.
What is different about the Uni-Q in the Blade Meta series?
Here are the key differentiators for the Uni-Q in the Blade Meta series:
The Blade models use the 12th generation Uni-Q driver array (as of the Meta update) incorporating Metamaterial Absorption Technology (MAT™) behind the tweeter.
In the Blade Two Meta, the Uni-Q’s midrange driver is crossed over at a somewhat higher frequency (450 Hz) compared to the previous version (320 Hz) which improves power handling and reduces distortion in that driver.
The MAT behind the tweeter is intended to absorb the tweeter’s rear-wave and prevent back-wave reflections which can colour the sound.
The Blade’s implementation of Uni-Q is paired with the “Single Apparent Source” concept: the idea being that bass, mid and high frequencies all appear to radiate from a single point (helping in imaging and coherence).
The midrange and tweeter in the Blade’s Uni-Q use aluminum domes/cones (rather than other composite or budget materials) for the mid/tweeter.
The review of the prior (non-Meta) Blade Two noted that “The Uni-Q driver is the same in both Blades [Prior generation], but differs from those used in KEF’s Reference and R-series speakers.”
This means that within KEF’s lineup there are differences in Uni-Q versions — not all Uni-Q are identical.
The higher crossover point (450 Hz) for the midrange in the Blade Two Meta means the Uni-Q driver is under somewhat less strain in the low midrange region compared to some designs which ask more of the midrange driver. That helps for high-SPL and large-room uses (which is relevant for you).
The addition of MAT behind the tweeter in the 12th gen is a further refinement aimed at reducing distortion and improving clarity/realism.
From ChatGPT:
Yes — the KEF Blade Two Meta (and its sibling the Blade One Meta) do indeed use a version of the KEF Uni-Q driver that is different (i.e., more advanced) compared to many other KEF models. I’ll break it down how it’s different, and how it compares to other speakers in your system context.
What is different about the Uni-Q in the Blade Meta series?
Here are the key differentiators for the Uni-Q in the Blade Meta series:
The Blade models use the 12th generation Uni-Q driver array (as of the Meta update) incorporating Metamaterial Absorption Technology (MAT™) behind the tweeter.
In the Blade Two Meta, the Uni-Q’s midrange driver is crossed over at a somewhat higher frequency (450 Hz) compared to the previous version (320 Hz) which improves power handling and reduces distortion in that driver.
The MAT behind the tweeter is intended to absorb the tweeter’s rear-wave and prevent back-wave reflections which can colour the sound.
The Blade’s implementation of Uni-Q is paired with the “Single Apparent Source” concept: the idea being that bass, mid and high frequencies all appear to radiate from a single point (helping in imaging and coherence).
The midrange and tweeter in the Blade’s Uni-Q use aluminum domes/cones (rather than other composite or budget materials) for the mid/tweeter.
The review of the prior (non-Meta) Blade Two noted that “The Uni-Q driver is the same in both Blades [Prior generation], but differs from those used in KEF’s Reference and R-series speakers.”
This means that within KEF’s lineup there are differences in Uni-Q versions — not all Uni-Q are identical.
The higher crossover point (450 Hz) for the midrange in the Blade Two Meta means the Uni-Q driver is under somewhat less strain in the low midrange region compared to some designs which ask more of the midrange driver. That helps for high-SPL and large-room uses (which is relevant for you).
The addition of MAT behind the tweeter in the 12th gen is a further refinement aimed at reducing distortion and improving clarity/realism.
I believe Blades One Meta and Two Meta share their Uni-Q specifically with LS50 Meta and then Reference series. I know Q series is not the same. I am not sure if R series is the same or not, but it might be. It is not the same Uni-Q as LS60.
Similar threads
