• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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 Reference 5 VS Blade 2 vs Muon

gags11

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
356
Likes
528
Audibly in EVERY department. Its gap is huge. Its not even in the same league. I suggest you put down the graphs for just a sec and take a listen if you have the chance. At some point we all will start listening to speakers so I suggest thats the best way to eveluate things. Youll go scrambling back to those all those graphs once youve heard both to to justify and find what is making such a difference and learn that there is more to it than fr and directivity. Go have a listen, normally or triple blinded if that helps.

Look, I know that there is a such thing as placebo effect and brain bias beyond FR, directivity, transducer distortion and dynamics. The latter 5 can be measured, your brain bias is unique to you and is a very subjective thing.
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
Look, I know that there is a such thing as placebo effect and brain bias beyond FR, directivity, transducer distortion and dynamics. The latter 5 can be measured, your brain bias is unique to you and is a very subjective thing.
Look, go listen to them then give your thoughts about it. There will come a time when you will have to drop all the graphs and actually start listening and experiencing music. Not everything is placebo and snake oil, KEF definitely isnt a company that does such a thing. Have you heard the R and Reference series side by side or on separate occasions? Either way they are goin to make a big difference. Im sure charts will show just that, just not in the FR as many great speakers nowdays measure real flat. The differences will be seen in directivity, dispersion, distortion and especially the spectral decay chart. Comparing the R to the Reference is like comparing the Q150 to the Metas.
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
The other thing those cars have in common with the Muon/Blade apart from price, is that practically everyone who buys them will never use them in a way that reveals their specialness.

You must have missed out many recent quarter mile, standing mile, road race events because they are full of those exotics there. Recently more than what we used to think.
 

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
For me, the step up is Blades because of their Point source design.

Also you mentioned the '' Comparing the R to the Reference is like comparing the Q150/Q350 to the Metas. '' the Q150 have a ''problems'' which are showed in measurements vs new ls50 M, but you cannot show the '' super upgrades in SQ '' by showing measurements Ref vs R series, because at certain point there is no '' so much upgrade and is in a compelte different league ''.
Measurements are very useful for not getting fooled.

Everyone's know the fact that the upgrades in SQ are getting lower if you go thought the expensives models, there is no much upgrade becausce the principal in design is the same, Blades are a different history, they have a complete different design and are point source, so you are getting a big upgrades because of the point source design, which is not the case from REF series.

And as i said, i listened both, the first tower from kef that i listened was REF3.


Im not saying the references are snake oil or something like that, but at certain level you cannot buy speaker that are '' much better and are in a different league ''.
 
Last edited:

gags11

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 8, 2019
Messages
356
Likes
528
Look, go listen to them then give your thoughts about it. There will come a time when you will have to drop all the graphs and actually start listening and experiencing music. Not everything is placebo and snake oil, KEF definitely isnt a company that does such a thing. Have you heard the R and Reference series side by side or on separate occasions? Either way they are goin to make a big difference. Im sure charts will show just that, just not in the FR as many great speakers nowdays measure real flat. The differences will be seen in directivity, dispersion, distortion and especially the spectral decay chart. Comparing the R to the Reference is like comparing the Q150 to the Metas.


Just have an open mind, please do a truly blinded listening test. It will be a revelation. I for one had compared equipment and could swear one sounded better than the other. When blinded I was clueless.

please watch this video!


Your inherent bias that Reference series has to be so much better than R since it costs 4 times more, clouds your mind.
 
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
For me, the step up is Blades because of their Point source design.

Also you mentioned the '' Comparing the R to the Reference is like comparing the Q150/Q350 to the Metas. '' the Q150 have a ''problems'' which are showed in measurements vs new ls50 M, but you cannot show the '' super upgrades in SQ '' by showing measurements Ref vs R series, because at certain point there is no '' so much upgrade and is in a compelte different league ''.
Measurements are very useful for not getting fooled.

Everyone's know the fact that the upgrades in SQ are getting lower if you go thought the expensives models, there is no much upgrade becausce the principal in design is the same, Blades are a different history, they have a complete different design and are point source, so you are getting a big upgrades because of the point source design, which is not the case from REF series.

And as i said, i listened both, the first tower from kef that i listened was REF3.


Im not saying the references are snake oil or something like that, but at certain level you cannot buy speaker that are '' much better and are in a different league ''.
The R and Reference are not at those levels which you speak about. There are still discernible differences. What you described applies much higher up in the food chain, and that I certainly agree. Problem is the R and Reference are stuck in the middle especially in the vast audio world. The R and Reference are nowhere near high end in those terms. But its ok not to agree, thats why we all have different senses and hearing. Back to the objective side, have you come across complete graphs of the R11 and Reference 5? Would be great to inspect thise great differences I heard.
 
Last edited:

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
The R and Reference are not at those levels which you speak about. There are still discernable differences. What you described applies much higher up in the food chain, and that I certainly agree. Problem is the R and Reference are stuck in the middle especially in the vast audio world. The R and Reference are nowhere near high end in those terms. But its ok not to agree, thats why we all have different senses and hearing. Back to the objective side, have you come across complete graphs of the R11 and Reference 5? Would be great to inspect thise great differences I heard.
We all have different perspective and value of the things, is a good thing not to aggre in everything
Personally i think something better will be a MINI BLADES META made in china pls for get that cheap. lol.
edit: i add measurements from KEF white paper

1631944453912.png

1631944489843.png



View attachment 153980
 
Last edited:
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
Just have an open mind, please do a truly blinded listening test. It will be a revelation. I for one had compared equipment and could swear one sounded better than the other. When blinded I was clueless.

please watch this video!


Your inherent bias that Reference series has to be so much better than R since it costs 4 times more, clouds your mind.
This isnt biasness, you dont know how much I wanted the R to be at the same level as the Reference. Now that is being biased, being on the R's side from the very beginning. Still I heard otherwise.

I do not object to abx double triple quadruple blind testing but how results are judged (statistics) just cannot be applied in this scenario. Take 10 people, if 5 out of 10 people get it right, testers will say its chance. If 7 or 8 out of 10 people get it right, testers will say its just a wee bit higher than chance and it still might be luck. In order to fully convince the tester, there must be 9 or 10 people that got it right which is quite impossible in this scenario. Remember we are talking about humans here, everyone hears differently at different sensitivity levels. Imaging putting 5 humans under 'chance' or 'luck' when they actually heard a difference and got it right. The double blind abx test do not work in such scenarios. These tests just show if an individual person is able or not able to pick out a difference, it doesnt show that everyone cant. After all thay said, it will be fun to test out if I, and I alone, can pick out the differences. Im arranging a proper double blind test with a few dealers here, it will take time but I will definitely do it with an open mind.
 
Last edited:

BrokenEnglishGuy

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2020
Messages
1,914
Likes
1,147
For me the problem with the price of References is the speaker are in territory of speaker with cardioid or point source design.. like genelec 8361/51 OR D&D 8C and maybe blades?, i mean even the blades are not 4x times the price of references..
 

buz

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 17, 2020
Messages
320
Likes
324
. Imaging putting 5 humans under 'chance' or 'luck' when they actually heard a difference and got it right. The double blind abx test do not work in such scenarios.


That's on the level of 'double blinded randomized trials aren't the correct way to evaluate homeopathy' .


IOW, science it is not.


FWIW, if your study is not sufficiently powered to find an effect you know is there, increasing sample size is generally a good approach.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I can only think they’re not interested enough to research the different lines.
I think a lot of people have bought into the narrative that only frequency response and radiation pattern matter. They may be the most important but it is obvious that it isn't only that, or at least it is to me.
Such data is very important in forming a list of speakers to evaluate by listening IMO, but not more.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
I’m just curious, when you say improvements everywhere, what are this improvements?

We know R series already performs exceptional and reference series measure elsewhere has not demonstrated much improvement over the R.

main difference is that Reference series is made in England, FR is measured and certified by a the technician. The FR plot is included with the speakers.

In objective terms the reference series can play slightly louder as the advertised specs for max spl are a bit higher. And Reference series weighs more than R.

IMHO, the R series is an improved version of the reference, but made in China and bit less bling. I would love to see one of those References series measured here.
Measurement using a microphone can not separate the spurious sound radiated from the cabinet from that radiated by the drivers.
The distortion level of the drivers tends to be considered relatively unimportant.
IME both are important from my experiments on me :), so I do not believe we have measurements to evaluate some of the important aspects of speaker performance. Such measurements as we have are an indispensible guide to a listening short list but not adequate as the sole parameter for making a buying decision IME.
 

AudioJester

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
915
Likes
1,215
I think a lot of people have bought into the narrative that only frequency response and radiation pattern matter. They may be the most important but it is obvious that it isn't only that, or at least it is to me.
Such data is very important in forming a list of speakers to evaluate by listening IMO, but not more.

But listening is prone to folly.
And proper DBT is not practical for the vast majority of us.
So what do we do? Certainly not going to trust one individual raving that speaker A is better than speaker B, despite measurements not supporting that.
 

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
But listening is prone to folly.
And proper DBT is not practical for the vast majority of us.
So what do we do? Certainly not going to trust one individual raving that speaker A is better than speaker B, despite measurements not supporting that.
A DBT on speakers is pretty well impossible when you think about it.
Firstly room acoustics and room modes vary the FR with speaker position and getting 2 speakers exactly the same volume is not possible either because they can't have the same volume since they won't have identical frequency responses.
So all one can sensibly do is make a short list of speakers to consider, based on measurement, and listen to them in your own home to see which you prefer.

This ain't going to happen with inexpensive speakers though but comparing R to Reference to Blade it would be essential IME.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
4,500
Likes
5,417
Location
UK
Measurement using a microphone can not separate the spurious sound radiated from the cabinet from that radiated by the drivers.
Does it need to? Is the frequency response sum at each angle not telling the whole story?
 

Count Arthur

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
2,197
Likes
4,888
If you throw a subwoofer, or two, and maybe DSP into the mix, what might that do? Could you acheive as good or possibly better results with standmount speakers than you could with larger floorstanders?

1631956442238.png
 

Attachments

  • 1631956382543.png
    1631956382543.png
    246.1 KB · Views: 48
OP
M

MarkWinston

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jul 13, 2021
Messages
736
Likes
577
3 types of people in general:

1. Person that downloads the all the graphs they can get their hands on and sticks them deep into their ears during critical listening because graphs can tell them all they need to know about how an equipment would sound like anywhere.

2. Person that takes graphs as a great guide and listens as seriously as they take those graphs.

3. Person that doesnt give a flying fish about graphs and buy what they think sound best. Screw you, I bought the speakers for myself and not anyone else.

You may find yourself stuck anywhere between those 3 categories and if so, good luck in your transition to any of those 3 categories. You will mainly find category 1 and 2 here.
 
Last edited:

Frank Dernie

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 24, 2016
Messages
6,445
Likes
15,781
Location
Oxfordshire
Does it need to? Is the frequency response sum at each angle not telling the whole story?
I don't think so.
The sound radiated by the cabinet is not accurate.
People have argued that it is at too low a level to matter.
Early on in my speaker building efforts cost of the cabinet was the most important parameter, but later reducing cabinet radiation sounded clearer to me, though this could be expectation bias.

I have a friend who has been designing speakers for clients for decades and he calculates the sound radiated by both cabinet and drivers and tells me it is not negligible from inexpensive cabinets.
Clever engineering can make it much reduced without being very expensive but for most makers the cabinet becomes very expensive to make its radiation negligible because it is just made massive and heavy.

As always clever engineering can achieve the goal for less money but I believe it is worth doing.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,454
Likes
4,216
3 types of people in general:

1. Person that downloads the all the graphs they can get their hands on and sticks them deep into their ears during critical listening because graphs can tell them all they need to know about how an equipment would sound anywhere.

2. Person that takes graphs as a great guide and listens as seriously as they take those graphs.

3. Person that doesnt give a flying fish about graphs and buy what they think sound best. Screw you, I bought the speakers for myself and not anyone else.

You may find yourself stuck anywhere between those 3 categories and if so, good luck in your transition to any of those 3 categories. You will mainly find category 1 and 2 here.

Thanks for flagging your biases and ignorant judgementalism. I gather you see yourself as a proud and rarely-seen-here Category 3 and looking waaay down your nose at the 'lower' category "types of people". You have much to learn but, like you say, the big question is, are you capable of budging? Your own evidence, from your own posts, says No. Well, good luck.
 

Benedium

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 1, 2020
Messages
343
Likes
255
Take it easy guys. We all have our own background and reasons. Free will is an illusion ;) If it's a competition you want, join the Olympics?

Hmmm... wonder if there are competitions like a Best Ear Tournament or something? Heheh
 
Top Bottom