KEF Blade Two Meta Review

[Frank Dernie]

The small variations are interesting.

Surely both graph smoothing and scan speed of the test tone will have quite big and unknown to us influence on the small variations.
IME using old B&K measurement kit in the 1970s you could get rid of peaks easily that way

The small differences look negligible to me and could easily be sample variation.

If you use a very fast chirp in the FR test some high Q peaks hardly show too.

 

[Digital_Thor]

Does the Reference 5 have the same drivers as Blade Two Meta?

This thread should clear it up - even KEF admit that it is tricky to get all the details right
They seem to be different - even though just a bit:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...erence-in-worse-light-than-it-deserves.62708/

 

[Endibol]

View attachment 467943
The Blade One Meta is only $7K more
Why would you want the smaller model if you're already paying that much?

Because it’s smaller, lighter and better!

 

[Sokel]

Because it’s smaller, lighter and better!

If four 6.5" (eight for a pair) hit as hard as eight 9" drivers there's something really wrong somewhere along the lines.
The real estate difference is staggering.

(eight 9" drivers is the equivalent of sixteen (yes, 16) 6.5" ones)

 

[kelesh]

View attachment 467404
KEF’s high-end flagship — the Blade Two Meta.
Due to its price, significant weight, and unusually shaped cabinet, I was unable to measure deviation between 2 samples and vertical directivity. I appreciate your understanding.





Impedance
View attachment 467405View attachment 467406




Frequency Response
View attachment 467407
Across the full audible range, the response is exceptionally flat.
The -6 dB low-end extension reaches down to about 33.6 Hz.
Although the low-frequency roll-off is fairly steep, the usable bandwidth is still more than sufficient.



Nearfield Measurements
View attachment 467408
Multiple components work in harmony to create something truly cohesive here.
The port shows no signs of pipe resonance, and the woofers exhibit an incredibly clean response.
This is engineering refinement at its finest.





Directivity
View attachment 467409View attachment 467410
Impressive.
As always, KEF’s mastery of directivity control shines through.
It’s simply beautiful.





Beamwidth
View attachment 467411
The beamwidth begins a smooth, graceful narrowing from around 800 Hz upward, showing excellent control across the range.





Polar Plot
View attachment 467412
Due to the speaker’s design and limitations of the time-window measurement method, a measurement artifact appears around 200 Hz on-axis (black line).




View attachment 467413
Once that’s excluded, the radiation pattern from 1 kHz up into the treble converges beautifully into near-perfect circles. It’s stunning.




THD
View attachment 467414View attachment 467415View attachment 467416
Even down to the 50 Hz region, total harmonic distortion remains around the 0.5% range.
Yes—50 Hz. That’s remarkable.





View attachment 467417View attachment 467418View attachment 467419
Even at 96 dB SPL@1m output, the performance in the sub-bass remains impressively clean.
Truly outstanding.




Multitone Test
View attachment 467420
View attachment 467421
This is what true scale and engineering prowess look like.
The speaker asserts its dominance with ease.





View attachment 467423View attachment 467424
The distortion was already so low to begin with that even at higher output levels, the increase in distortion is negligible.
Stellar performance.



Compression Test
View attachment 467425

Within the test bandwidth, the compression results are practically flat — almost error-level behavior.
Utterly powerful.




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.

Superb performance, without a doubt. What a shame that they are incredibly expensive and incredibly ugly.

 

[Chagall]

Awesome. We need to save this subjective narrative for any and all occasions where the value of measurements is challenged. Especially for the speakers that measure poorly.

Any word salad will do.

I get that people want more insight into how something sounds, but they need to understand that deciphering random adjectives that reviewer felt in a random room without knowing any specifics that affected the sound isn’t useful at all. It’s like trying to describe physics without using math.

 

[Endibol]

If four 6.5" (eight for a pair) hit as hard as eight 9" drivers there's something really wrong somewhere along the lines.
The real estate difference is staggering.

(eight 9" drivers is the equivalent of sixteen (yes, 16) 6.5" ones)

You are right that the ones offer more and deeper bass. However in smaller rooms the two’s together with the room gain will offer plenty of bass I would expect.

 

[Ciobi69]

i would chose kef blade 2 + subs instead blade 1 only, if somebody has more money blade 1 and subs, a dedicated 15/18 inch driver its another game, my subs can hit 130db of peak

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

i would chose kef blade 2 + subs instead blade 1 only, if somebody has more money blade 1 and subs, a dedicated 15/18 inch driver its another game, my subs can hit 130db of peak

Honestly, this just makes more sense from a room acoustics point of view, anyway. The loudspeakers need to be placed where they achieve the best imaging at main listening position, and it is not very frequently that the same position is optimal for producing the most even bass response in the room. A separate subwoofer that can be placed optimally for bass production always works out best for adapting a system to the room.

 

[Sokel]

Honestly, this just makes more sense from a room acoustics point of view, anyway. The loudspeakers need to be placed where they achieve the best imaging at main listening position, and it is not very frequently that the same position is optimal for producing the most even bass response in the room. A separate subwoofer that can be placed optimally for bass production always works out best for adapting a system to the room.

Depends what the goal is.
If it's about a straight line in the chart, sure, some subs around can do that.
If however the goal is also stereo bass and AE things can get tricky.

There's a really good thread about all this here.

Amongst other things, I'll quote some of @Thomas Lund from this post:

If two subs are not possible, I would not cross-over higher than 40 Hz.

Integrating subs is a little less difficult than building speakers. And automatic solutions are not always optimal.

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

Depends what the goal is.
If it's about a straight line in the chart, sure, some subs around can do that.
If however the goal is also stereo bass and AE things can get tricky.

There's a really good thread about all this here.

Amongst other things, I'll quote some of @Thomas Lund from this post:




Integrating subs is a little less difficult than building speakers. And automatic solutions are not always optimal.

If one is spending the cost of these majestic speakers, the cost of two subs plus the necessary kit for proper integration is not a big stretch anyway.

 

[Sokel]

If one is spending the cost of these majestic speakers, the cost of two subs plus the necessary kit right people for proper integration is not a big stretch anyway.

I corrected it a little, as more than the hardware it's the formal education about it that does the trick.

 

[SoySalsaPicante]

I corrected it a little, as more than the hardware it's the formal education about it that does the trick.

Really both. No good if the experts leave with the equipment after.

 

[Sokel]

Really both. No good if the experts leave with the equipment after.

The experts will also advise you about the equipment or they'll bring their own, at least for measurements.
Correcting low is not easy, and that stands for hardware too. The lower you get, the better the implementation must be, both hardware and software.

Correcting passively the room a little can also do wonders.

To the thread, if I was about to get the big boys of the two (blade 1) , I would make absolutely sure to at least have a decent placement for them.
I already wrote earlier how a room can cripple even the nicest speaker.

 

[Whoareyou]

Size and weight are factors to consider regardless of price. If I could get 10-foot tall, 500-pound speakers for less than what I paid for mine, I wouldn't go for it. Particularly when the performance is quite similar.

This! I couldn't believe when I saw these only way 77lbs? Since purchasing my Revel 328's, I've heard these and they sound fantastic.
Don't get me wrong, as the Revels sound fantastic, but I had to hire a moving crew to get my speakers into my listening room, down a flight of stairs.
Not sure how the Kef's are delivered, but the Revels also have the flight cases, which were equally difficult to get into storage area. If I ever decide to move, I feel like I need to sell the Revel's with the house!

Now, the Revels also have the matching 426 center channel available, which I need for my setup, but 77lb speakers that sound this good? Thank you very much.
If I thought I could get my Revel and their flight cases out of my room without hiring a crew (that knows how to handle the speakers), I'd swap them out, and use them with the 426be center. I might lose something by not having a matched set of speakers across the front, but I think it would sound very good.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Honestly, this just makes more sense from a room acoustics point of view, anyway. The loudspeakers need to be placed where they achieve the best imaging at main listening position, and it is not very frequently that the same position is optimal for producing the most even bass response in the room. A separate subwoofer that can be placed optimally for bass production always works out best for adapting a system to the room.

Depends what the goal is.
If it's about a straight line in the chart, sure, some subs around can do that.
If however the goal is also stereo bass and AE things can get tricky.

There's a really good thread about all this here.

Amongst other things, I'll quote some of @Thomas Lund from this post:

Integrating subs is a little less difficult than building speakers. And automatic solutions are not always optimal.

Some Big Bass issues. Even if using a KEF Blade.

1. Loudness contouring, we do not hear increases and decreases in Bass in a linear fashion relative to the midrange. You would need to set-up and always listen at the same/similar SPL or have the ability to adjust the bass when playing quietly and very loudly. This is true whether you have just a 2.0 setup or 2.2/2.4/2.x.
If you set-up bass for normal/medium playback levels and then crank it you will have way to much perceived bass and if you turn it down to a quiet level you might even lose the ability to hear low bass as the minimum threshold to even perceive the notes is often above low level listening levels.
Generally once you hit about 75db, humans perceive a doubling of sound in the midrange every 10db, but for bass this perception happens every 5-6db. So incompatible with SPL changes without the ability to compensate.

2. Room peaking and nulls, at this price, for actual high fidelity the Blades are not ideal on their own for bass reproduction in room no matter how many drivers they have or how awesome they measure on the KNFS or anechoic. Toole's book and many other sources have demonstrated that evening out the bass is best done with several sources placed throughout the room. Like splashing water waves in a pool, having multiple sources evens out the peaks and nulls and done well offers a much larger sweet spot for low end fidelity. So the 4 subs placed around the space is not for more bass, but rather evened out bass. (His book, & others have shown that more than 4 sources is usually overkill.)

3. PEQ/DSP/Digital Room Adaptation/ect only work for the 'Sweet Spot'. They can make it sound terrible in other areas of the room. That is most likely fine but keep that in mind. Luckily if you have a huge room, and thus a need for huge speakers you will have much less room effect vs medium or small rooms. Thus less need to 'correct' or 'adapt' the response to the room. But still. If you buy these or any speakers this size for a small room that is not a good plan. Use monitors and carefully placed separate subs in small or small medium rooms.

4. SBIR, this is huge and why it is nice to place subs near the walls and if possible have them handle the lower midbass (which would require pulling the mains far out into the room). Take care than any 2.0 set-up does not have woofers equal distances from side walls, front wall, floor and ceiling or you can get huge cancelations that can not be corrected. Even just from one boundary cancelation are big issues. Make sure the distance & resulting reflection does not cancel 70-100hrz notes as that is where we get a lot of bass enjoyment. Ideally the main are crossed above the SBIR frequency and the Subs handle it but that can be hard with big mains and wanting to pull them out into the room. Ideally for SBIR you place the speaker very close to the front wall to push the interference frequency up into the midrange or pull them far out into the space. At 3ft/1meter you get huge cancelations in the midbass around 80hrz especially if multiple boundary's have similar distances from the woofer centers.
Hopefully all you Blade buyers using a 2.0 set-up have huge rooms and lots of boundary to speaker distances by where this issue is mitigated and pushed down to very low frequency's and not midbass.

5. Stereo Bass, sure does the recording even offer it? No vinyl does and most digital does not. Initial 40hrz waves are 28+ feet wide and still 14+ at 80hrz. Then traveling at the speed of sound they slam into all the walls and bounce around at the speed of sound filling the room with the notes and pressure. I doubt most will have any sense of any stereo effect there at home ever unless they decide they want one.(sighted biases) Even if possible, most folks don't have their speakers more than 14 feet apart nor are they sitting more than 14 feet away to even have the chance of any 80hrz stereo effect, maybe in huge rooms with specific testing content. 80hrz notes emanating from 2 sources 14feet apart will just sum into one source in fact they can be much further and still sum. But whatever, I have no issues with someone going 2.0 just realize it is surly for simplicity and maybe the ease of integration or the 'look', not for the highest fidelity. (and surely SBIR and room peaking/nulling is far more noticeable vs any form of stereo 40hrz bass)

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I might lose something by not having a matched set of speakers across the front, but I think it would sound very good.

If that is an issue, KEF does offer center channels in their Reference line and, afaik, they utilise the same mid/high UniQ driver.

 

[Whoareyou]

If that is an issue, KEF does offer center channels in their Reference line and, afaik, they utilise the same mid/high UniQ driver.

Did you have opportunity to compare using ref center channel vs Blade 2 Meta (as center)?

 

[Heinrich]

How can you not want these? Price is about the only thing holding me back.

Anyone?

Low impedance ~3.2Ohm, is it true?

 

[Chagall]

Anyone?

View attachment 468154

Low impedance ~3.2Ohm, is it true?

Yes

Edit: As pointed out by @Newman this is wrong. Sorry for the confusion.