KEF Reference and Blade Meta announced, but where is the R Meta?????

[Descartes]

It would be so nice if KEF could make smaller blade speakers, that would be less expensive and would provide more interesting design rather than the Reference Series that are still boxes!
They showed us they can be very creative with the Muon, the Blade and the LS 50!

 

[JDragon]

It would be so nice if KEF could make smaller blade speakers, that would be less expensive and would provide more interesting design rather than the Reference Series that are still boxes!
They showed us they can be very creative with the Muon, the Blade and the LS 50!

Reference level parts/cabinet in a non-box form factor is the dream. I would definitely upgrade my Ref 1s for that. The boring visual design is really my only complaint about the Reference line.

 

[Vacceo]

Reference level parts/cabinet in a non-box form factor is the dream. I would definitely upgrade my Ref 1s for that. The boring visual design is really my only complaint about the Reference line.

It would just be a matter of revisiting the old IQ designs era. I know because those are the speakers I use. I like Sonus Faber design exactly for that reason, the lute shape that reminds me from what I currently use.

That said, I hope the project KEF has with Lotus permeates to a production of standard car speakers in the usual 3,5 6,5 and so on sizes.

 

[harkpabst]

Reference level parts/cabinet in a non-box form factor is the dream. I would definitely upgrade my Ref 1s for that. The boring visual design is really my only complaint about the Reference line.

I don't think that this is going to happen because technically there is no need to. Most of the claimed benefits of somehow rounded cabinets (like e.g. no standing waves) are non-existent or much exaggerated at least and most certainly not worth the extra expense. To really take advantage the entire design has to be rather extreme and the outcome of such efforts is pretty much ... the Blade.

 

[JDragon]

I don't think that this is going to happen because technically there is no need to. Most of the claimed benefits of somehow rounded cabinets (like e.g. no standing waves) are non-existent or much exaggerated at least and most certainly not worth the extra expense. To really take advantage the entire design has to be rather extreme and the outcome of such efforts is pretty much ... the Blade.

The biggest benefit isn’t technical but aesthetic. There’s a huge price and size gap in KEF’s more visually interesting “flagship” designs between the LS50 and Blade Two. It’s a prime location to insert a product to compete with B&W, Sonus Faber, Focal, Paradigm, etc. that have more aesthetically exciting product lines in that range.

 

[Vacceo]

Shape can also bring innovation and improvement beyond aesthetics. I´m not an engineer, but it seems like the Blades are what they are in great part because of function. Pushing the container due to function is also interesting, just like the drivers have been refined for years.

 

[harkpabst]

The biggest benefit isn’t technical but aesthetic. There’s a huge price and size gap in KEF’s more visually interesting “flagship” designs between the LS50 and Blade Two. It’s a prime location to insert a product to compete with B&W, Sonus Faber, Focal, Paradigm, etc. that have more aesthetically exciting product lines in that range.

This is true, but only if I follow a particular definition of "visually interesting" and "aesthetically exciting". Creating non-boxy shapes purely for aesthetic reasons still has to pay out. Money spent on fancy cabinet shapes cannot be spent on drivers or crossovers. My guess: Those who don't care about how much money they shelf out on speakers are more likely to base their purchasing decision on extravagant looks than those of us looking for a balanced compromise.

Blade Two is already close to "reference level parts in a non-box form factor". The gap between Reference 5 Meta and Blade Two Meta is like 30%. Not a true sweet spot for a new product. Anything lower down in price could not make use of the single apparent source concept. I don't want to argue about taste, though. You prefer less boring looks and that's fine. I just want to outline why I think your wishes will probably not be fulfilled.

Shape can also bring innovation and improvement beyond aesthetics. I´m not an engineer, but it seems like the Blades are what they are in great part because of function. Pushing the container due to function is also interesting, just like the drivers have been refined for years.

Yes, absolutely. Blade's design is actually mostly about function, not looks (even if I wonder how many buyers actually value that). In case of the Reference series there has been a heck of a lot of engineering and innovation leading to the current design. KEF engineers found out through research that what looks like a regular box to the casual observer actually works better acoustically than the previous designs if you add a shadow flare (which did show some issues with the cheaper R series) to the midrange driver, apply bracing and compound layer damping to the cabinet and bolt high mass materials to the baffles. It's the better design overall.

This thread is about the new Blade Meta and Reference Meta series in particular. Does it relate to the outer appearance? It's fair to say so. Teaming up with the Acoustic Metamaterials Group KEF engineers showed that MAT is more efficient in absorbing unwanted backwards sound energy from the tweeter than inverted exponential horns. Sorry, but I can never ever look at the B&W Nautilus again without thinking how it's design is simply outdated, now.

Funny enough, many early reviewers (of KEF LS50 Meta and LS50 Wireless II) didn't get the MAT concept at all. They assumed that this disc on the back of the driver was intended to somehow absorb backwards sound from the bass driver. Just in case: No, it's not. But maybe some day we are going to see more use of meta materials e.g. in Blade Meta³ midrange drivers? Well, maybe not, who knows.

 

[envydd]

I would love to have a mini blade for my study instead of my stand mounted R3s.

 

[Descartes]

I don't think that this is going to happen because technically there is no need to. Most of the claimed benefits of somehow rounded cabinets (like e.g. no standing waves) are non-existent or much exaggerated at least and most certainly not worth the extra expense. To really take advantage the entire design has to be rather extreme and the outcome of such efforts is pretty much ... the Blade.

They could do a blade 3 for half the size and price!

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

A sealed blade made to pair up with subs must be cheaper (?)
(But pls with spikes like the Reference series..)

 

[harkpabst]

They could do a blade 3 for half the size and price!

Half the price of Blade One Meta, I assume? Blade Two is 20% down in price from Blade One so I see no reason why a hypothetical Blade Three Meta could sell at 50% of Blade Two. That would still make it a $17.000 speaker so it had to beat (or at least compete with) a Reference 3 Meta.

Literally half the size would probably not be a good idea (too small to be a floorstander, too large for the desktop) but I agree that there is still some potential for shrinking. This might also require a smaller Uni-Q, maybe closer to LSX size, to keep the relative distances and dimensions balanced.

A sealed blade made to pair up with subs must be cheaper (?)
(But pls with spikes like the Reference series..)

Why should a sealed version be noticeably cheaper? You can do away with the ports and you need a little higher Qts woofers but that's it.

In theory you could use weaker magnets (saving a bit of money) to lower the Q factor but this would also result in a lower overall sensitivity. Could be done, but even the current Blades are not overly sensitive and require amps with good current delivery capabilities.

 

[HeadDoc12]

Here's MY dream speaker from KEF: I currently have the LS50W2 and a pair of KC62 subs. Put all that hardware into a Blade 3 body, and you have a beautiful, full-range, active small floorstander with 1,380 watts per channel. Class D for mids and bass, class AB for the tweeters. Here's the catch. My system cost me under $5500US. You could upgrade the drivers, maybe even use Purifi amps, and still keep it under $10K. Then, who would buy the bigger Blades or even the Ref floorstanders? Just thinking out loud...

 

[killdozzer]

Thank you very much @jackocleebrown !
Let me start by saying you could hardly make a post too long. I don't want to be "all compliments", but I really find it a fascinating read. I have no expertise in this nor similar fields. I'm just an amateur aficionado, but I do obsess over details.

My question was aiming at speaker's demand for power when played moderately loud. In your answer you also mention this "rule of thumb" - weaker amp is enough for low level listening. I was wondering if power plays a more significant role even when not pushed to its limits. This is also why I asked about the lowest impedance dip as stated in the white paper.

There's a reputation attached to LS50 as being power-hungry. There are numerous reviews stating this. I wanted to understand it better since I do realize that if you need 1w for 85dB, you'd need 8w for 94dB. Further few watts to account for the distance to your listening position, but that's still far from what is being mentioned. I simply thought that perhaps it's because of these impedance dips. I have the first model LS50 (my next step is Meta + Sub, but I'm still waiting for some detailed read on KC62). I power them with 110wpch into 8, but with an amp measured all the way down to 2 ohms and still stable and with arguably low increase in THD. I was quite satisfied when I moved from some weaker amps (although I didn't do a proper comparison and all this could be expectations).

When you say: "AB amps struggle to deliver power into inductive and capacitive loads and typically the most difficult frequencies are either side of the impedance dip where the magnitude is still fairly low and the phase angle deviates from zero. Such impedances make the amplifier output stage work much harder and can cause protection systems in the amp to trigger." do you, by any chance, have easily accessible numbers on how big would be this increase in power consumption for the most difficult frequencies?

Is there any real-world use of all that excess power or do we really have 40% of our power amps just idling by?

@jackocleebrown well, I won't insist, but if you ever find the time, I'm honestly interested do my LS50 ever get any use of all that power if I'm around 90dB most of the time? I'm thinking specifically about the most power hungry regimes of operating.

 

[Blender]

Here's MY dream speaker from KEF: I currently have the LS50W2 and a pair of KC62 subs. Put all that hardware into a Blade 3 body, and you have a beautiful, full-range, active small floorstander with 1,380 watts per channel. Class D for mids and bass, class AB for the tweeters. Here's the catch. My system cost me under $5500US. You could upgrade the drivers, maybe even use Purifi amps, and still keep it under $10K. Then, who would buy the bigger Blades or even the Ref floorstanders? Just thinking out loud...

Somebody should make a pair of beautiful stands that each hold a kc62 at the base and an LS50 above, and get a very similar effect. I wouldn’t buy such a stand though; I enjoy the freedom of placing my kc62 independently from my LS50s.

 

[bo_knows]

Terry from the "Pursuit Perfect System" just released this youtube video with Dr. Jack Oclee-Brown's presentation on the new KEF Blade and Reference technical changes.

Enjoy.

 

[Simply Stereo]

We just got our Reference 3 Meta towers in. They're quite impressive so far. Very happy with them. The only disappointment which we find with the entire Reference/Blade Meta lines is they remain visually unchanged. After getting these, we aren't so sure that's a bad thing...

We are even more excited to get our Blades in now.

 

[jonfitch]

Wish they kept the old piano black finish with the silver faceplate though, or offer something other than satin walnut for wood finishes.

 

[Descartes]

We just got our Reference 3 Meta towers in. They're quite impressive so far. Very happy with them. The only disappointment which we find with the entire Reference/Blade Meta lines is they remain visually unchanged. After getting these, we aren't so sure that's a bad thing...

View attachment 199238View attachment 199239View attachment 199240




We are even more excited to get our Blades in now. View attachment 199241

I enjoy the LS50 meta but these are definitely not my cup of tea in the esthetic department! So boring looks! They should hire Sonus Faber designers an put their engineering in it!

 

[nothingman]

There’s really no point having a discussion on aesthetics. Some say the satin metal and walnut are boring, some (me) say it’s tasteful, classic, modern and basically perfect and I’d love to place them in my living room. Sonus Faber? Some love it, some (me, again) say they are adorned with meaningless flourishes to the point of being gaudy. No one is wrong.

 

[muad]

There’s really no point having a discussion on aesthetics. Some say the satin metal and walnut are boring, some (me) say it’s tasteful, classic, modern and basically perfect and I’d love to place them in my living room. Sonus Faber? Some love it, some (me, again) say they are adorned with meaningless flourishes to the point of being gaudy. No one is wrong.

You and me have the same taste! KEF is classy