KEF Reference 5 VS Blade 2 vs Muon

[thewas]

Nah, just try playing LS50 and Blade regularly in a normal room at the same distance with regular music. See at 100db at your seat, which one distort less.

I never claimed that the LS50 can do higher SPL in the bass, as said this discussion has long run its way...

 

[phoenixdogfan]

Nope

Source: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ama-and-measurements.18353/page-3#post-603870

Are you even going to hear that. Human hearing is notoriously insensitive to bass distortion. It literally has to be at or over 100% to be audible.

 

[Pdxwayne]

Are you even going to hear that. Human hearing is notoriously insensitive to bass distortion. It literally has to be at or over 100% to be audible.

See the chart in this one. No, not 100%.

KEF Reference 5 VS Blade 2 vs Muon

Yes, with their own measurement definition (same for all Audio and Stereoplay reviews), why does it surprise you? In KEF specs the blades have 116dB max spl and R7 111dB (?) but in stereplay the blades have less max output?

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[richard12511]

Answer was given above:



The original Blades are just too much for many, or even most, rooms. Sure, you could tame them with DSP, but there's no point having such big+heavy speakers.

What would you have had them change instead in the Blade Two? Remember, the point was to make a smaller+cheaper variant to co-exist with the original, which is still available. It's not "version 2".

It is odd having so little price difference where you are though. It's €26,900 vs €21,900 here. Although I'm sure it's negotiable. Get them to at least throw in some nice speaker cable.

The should update the original to the newer tech of the Blade2. I don't like how atm one has to choose between better treble/mids(Blade2) or better bass(Blade).

 

[phoenixdogfan]

The percentages are totally subjective and dependent on the way one views these percentages. Logarithmic? Linear? From the way I view these things, saying the LS50M + subs is only 40% as good seems rather silly, but I tend to view this question different than most, or so it seems. For me 0% as good would be it doesn't produce sound at all. Ignoring dynamics(which is a big part of where extra cost is justified) 50-60% would be like internal TV speakers. More than half of the sound quality is there. You can watch TV and understand dialogue, all your music sounds like your music, just with less bass, and less refinement. For me, a JBL 308p is probably 80-85%+ as good as the best there is. Going from TV speakers to JBL 308p is a bigger leap than going from the 308p to the M2. Outside of dynamics and bass, I just haven't heard anything that's (what I would call) "way better" than a good neutral, budget loudspeaker.

I know that by far the biggest jump in sound quality I've ever experienced was when I went from TV speakers to my Infinity Beta 20 setup. That was more of an improvement than the jump from the Infinity Beta 20 to Genelec 8351 is. If I A/Bed the two against each other, I bet most non audiophiles would say something like "the Genelec sounds a little better, but they both sound amazing".

Like I said, though, I think I have a different scale(more linear?). Just the way I think about it I suppose. I had several people message me a few months ago asking why I said the 8351b was only 5-10%(at most) better(ignoring bass and dynamics) than the 8030c . I can see why by some different scale that might seem weird. I tend to think this hobby is more or less all about squeezing out that last 10% . I'm fine with it, though. It's comparable to other expensive hobbies. A SOTA road bike might knock a few seconds off your mile time (~1-5%?) over a good bike, but it's not gonna get you a 50-60% improvement.

I find those percentage type comparisons to be utterly meaningless. There will be differences between a Blade and a Meta, to be sure, and they can mostly be measured and quantified. But what value each individual attaches to those differences depends on a person's utility curve--which will be every bit as individual as they are. I, for one, listened to a lot of reviewers, for example, who maintained that the difference between the OG LS 50s and the Metas were but minor improvements. I bought the Metas nonetheless and own and have owned the originals since 2015, and, to me, the differences I heard were significant--for me the difference between good and great. Others may hold a different opinion, even if we both have access to the same in room performance measurements. I'm sure those folks would attach a different "percentage improvement" in the performance of the Meta over the LS 50 than I would.

 

[richard12511]

As I had written in the original post these numbers are purely subjective, for me 40-50% would be something like a pure JBL 305 which still sounds quite good and is better than what probably 99% of the world population is listening to. Also on the Meta + sub setup it depends alot on how the setup is filtered and placed and like you say also on the listening level, to try to keep a bit up distortion wise you need the Meta (so not the old LS50 you have) and a quite high crossover to the subs which not many subs can handle.

By the way both the Blade 1 and Blade 2 are also not really high SPL loudspeakers, here are the distortion measurements of the 1

View attachment 154953
(source: https://www.connect.de/testbericht/kef-blade-1221650.html )

and Blade 2

View attachment 154951
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-blade-two-stereoplay-2015.pdf )

having both even higher distortion at the critical mid region than the Meta

View attachment 154950
(source: http://www.novial.sk/documents-kef/kef-ls50-meta-stereoplay-2021.pdf )



See above, plus the distortion advantage of the lower range is irrelevant at the here talked comparison with subwoofer setup.
By the way KEF gives also for the Meta

<0,4% 175 Hz - 20 kHz
<0,1% 300 Hz - 10 kHz
(source: https://us.kef.com/speaker/flagship-hi-fi-speakers/ls50-meta.html )

so actually above 300 Hz (where distortion is more audible) lower values, there is a reason why it also listed under the flagship category.

That of course doesn't mean that the Blade 2 isn't great, as I had written in the acoustic well treated KEF HQ it was one of the best audio experienmces I ever had, I am just relativizing their differences.


Thank you, you wrote much nicer and detailed what I meant.

It's also hard for me to guess because Metas + (good)Subs will have just so much better bass quality than either the Blade 1 or Blade 2 are capable of, and how much does that factor in? Sub integration also matters a lot. A poor integration might really knock the Metas + Subs down a lot. With the Blades, they come integrated .

 

[richard12511]

Below this

View attachment 155057

There are many different ways to measure max SPL. Kef's spec measurement is likely frequency limited and less distortion limited, and perhaps even pair added(I don't know). Given the size of the Blade 2, and the fact that it only has 4 6" drivers, 101dB max SPL sounds about right. No way it's getting close to 116dB without subwoofer help.

I suppose that's a long winded way of saying "both are right, it just depends on what you mean". For a 2.0 setup, with distortion and mind, Stereoplay's and Stereophile's 101dB figure is no doubt more accurate. For a a 2.1 setup with 4 giant subs crossed at 100Hz, KEF's 116dB is probably closer to the truth.

 

[steve59]

The should update the original to the newer tech of the Blade2. I don't like how atm one has to choose between better treble/mids(Blade2) or better bass(Blade).

The uniq in the blade and blade 2 are identical

 

[Descartes]

My local dealer has all sorts of KEF speakers and I auditioned Blade 1&2, Reference 1,3,&5, and R series before the pandemic.

I much prefer the Reference series over the R series. Unfortunately, anything larger than Reference 1 revealed the show room bass modes issues, thus I suspect that those bigger Reference and Blade are not really small/mid size room friendly if one don't plan to use eq.

Where is your dealer located?

 

[Descartes]

How do measurements measure resolution? The salon 2 will let us hear deeper into a recording than the f208 and with stereo listening the difference between the salon 2 would be much greater than the 328be because the heroic cabinet build (and dedicated lower mid) reduce distortion and create a much more realistic soundstage.

The more I come on this forum the more I think its original intentions have gone horribly awry. Dr Toole doesn't have a room full of f12 or f35 speakers in his room waving around measurements, he uses salon 2 for which on the forum that hides behind his name he would be laughed at for price bias.

Dr. Toole is a great scientist and I have a lot of respect for his work and have enjoyed learning from reading his scientific publications and book!
But let’s be honest, he definitely did not pay full price for the speakers or better yet got them for free! Even if he did pay, he probably bought them at manufacturing cost, probably 60% off MSRP since dealer cost is 40% off MSRP!

 

[Descartes]

Cool studio recording 5 KEF Blade in surround sound

Too bad they are also promoting their Fururtec cables and a bunch of BS non sense!

 

[Pdxwayne]

Where is your dealer located?

See https://echohifi.com/

 

[rrahmanucla]

The currently best KEF loudspeaker is imho the Blade 2 as it has some updates compared to the older and bigger Blade 1 (had also the luck to listen to it at the KEF factory in UK, one of my all time best audio experiences), the Muon is more a design and highend price "flagship" to have something to offer also in that market niche. The current Reference series introduced the shadow flare to reduce the sound diffraction problem of battle edges but in the end although it is very good, it won't be on the same highest level as on a curved baffle like the Blade or LS50.

Like I said, the Blade is a FLAWLESS design. No cabinet resonances, no baffle diffraction, perfect directivity, all while maintaining point source sound. With all of that it's a standing work of art.

so in the context of the blade, The Reference 5 is not really a 'monster' or 'end game'. Other than the Uni-Q driver there is nothing unique or innovative about it.

Hey Guys,

What are your thoughts on this measured directivity error with the Blades relative to Reference series?

I tried to get more information on this when purchasing my speakers (I own Reference 5s) and concluded that the opposing drivers on blades were creating a directivity error around 300-500 Hz. The lower end Reference 1 and 3's don't display this error, presumably the Reference 5's don't either, which lead me to conclude that the Reference series were the objectively better speakers.

Both of these plots were obtained from soundstage

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: KEF Blade Two Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - NRC Measurements: KEF Reference 3 Loudspeakers

www.soundstagenetwork.com

 

[thewas]

This off axis dip for higher angles happens due to the location of the side woofers but being so narrow, low at frequency and at higher angles it doesn't make a really audible problem.

 

[rrahmanucla]

This off axis dip for higher angles happens due to the location of the side woofers but being so narrow, low at frequency and at higher angles it doesn't make a really audible problem.

I see. I have a follow up question...

With the dip it makes the curves seem to converge around 1Khz before gradually separating. All together this makes it appear less of a smooth, gradual decline to me relative to the Reference series at these 45-75 degree off angles.

Excluding the dip in the 45-75 degree plots, if you were to criticize the Soundstage - Reference 3 directivity plot(s), what is lacking relative to the Blade 2's?


Also while I have your attention, when purchasing I debated between the Revel Performa 328Be and KEF Reference 5's, but struggled to find independent measurements. I based my decision on other speakers in the lineup or that likely sounded similar and had measurements available, for example the KEF Reference 3 vs Revel Salon Studio. Both measure well with smooth, upwards, trending directivity curves, however the Reference 3 series directivity plots seem to increase more aggressively relative to the Revels' (i.e. higher slope of the directivity curve). Could you comment based on experiments or expert opinion on how this may be better or worse?

I use my speakers for home theater and music, and speculated that a higher sloping directivity curve would simulate point sources better which would be preferable for Dolby Atmos algorithms.

SoundStage! Measurements - Revel Ultima Salon2 Loudspeakers (12/2009)

 

[thewas]

Excluding the dip in the 45-75 degree plots, if you were to criticize the Soundstage - Reference 3 directivity plot(s), what is lacking relative to the Blade 2's?

You see for example more wiggles in the tweeter region due to the straight baffle with sharp edges which while are reduced by the shadow flare, cannot be fully eliminated, this is though nitpicking at a highest level.

Also while I have your attention, when purchasing I debated between the Revel Performa 328Be and KEF Reference 5's, but struggled to find independent measurements. I based my decision on other speakers in the lineup or that likely sounded similar and had measurements available, for example the KEF Reference 3 vs Revel Salon Studio. Both measure well with smooth, upwards, trending directivity curves, however the Reference 3 series directivity plots seem to increase more aggressively relative to the Revels' (i.e. higher slope of the directivity curve). Could you comment based on experiments or expert opinion on how this may be better or worse?

I use my speakers for home theater and music, and speculated that a higher sloping directivity curve would simulate point sources better which would be preferable for Dolby Atmos algorithms.

As you have correctly noticed the Revel are radiating wider than the KEF, thus the room reflected sound has a higher level which can be advantageous at stereo but at multichannel usually narrower directivity is preferable.

 

[steve59]

The only way to tell is to get them home and listen in the spot you can place them.

 

[steve59]

The currently best KEF loudspeaker is imho the Blade 2 as it has some updates compared to the older and bigger Blade 1 (had also the luck to listen to it at the KEF factory in UK, one of my all time best audio experiences), the Muon is more a design and highend price "flagship" to have something to offer also in that market niche. The current Reference series introduced the shadow flare to reduce the sound diffraction problem of battle edges but in the end although it is very good, it won't be on the same highest level as on a curved baffle like the Blade or LS50.

would appreciate naming the improvement that were made on the blade 2. Before I bought the blades I asked what was changed in the 2's and was told only woofer and cabinet size to accommodate average size rooms. not to worry tho' as the blades are pretty good even at their mature age.