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

[KMO]

Possibly but, the HP for the midrange is at 450Hz for the Meta Blade 2, while for the original Blade 2, it is 320Hz. That can be a compensation in terms of power rating and compression.

Possibly true for the Blade Two Meta, but the Blade One Meta still uses 350Hz, same as the original Blade One.

I wonder what the reasoning there is - my guess is it's trying to tune the dispersion, and the MF polarity reversal has changed something more fundamental in the Blade Two's output.

The Blade One cabinet is the "prototype" that was the result of all the original number crunching - maybe the rescale for Blade Two skewed the numbers a bit, meaning that it has to seek a compromise crossover point, whereas the 350Hz is a consistent sweet spot for the original cabinet. And that compromise point shifted because of the polarity change.

 

[KMO]

OG KEF Blade has a 3inch voice coil for midrange driver, does this mean that now the REF series has the same size and magnet structure? If so, I would think that would take away from Blade being special and worth an extra $$$.

It certainly eliminates some of the "materials" prestige, but you've still got the overall cabinet concept.

And the Blade has never been that much more expensive than the Reference anyway - a 30% price increment for the fancy design and "single apparent source" of the Blade Two over the Reference 5 doesn't seem that bad a deal.

Reference 5 -> Blade Two is a smaller price step proportionately than between any other pair in the Reference or Blade series.

 

[Arc Acoustics]

Don't be fooled.
The actual directivity is not that clean, it's NOT normalized.

KEF tend to compensate to the listening window, and the on-axis response has bumps.

The first contour line might be ref SPL-3dB.
And you should remind even a 1dB bump in the on-axis corresponds probably over +5deg in the -3dB beamwidth.

This is the trick they used to make the "appealing figure" for their catalogue.

Genelec 83*1 is a hell of a lot cheaper and the measurements look great without any cheap trick because it actually measured superb.

 

[KMO]

Don't be fooled.
The actual directivity is not that clean, it's NOT normalized.

KEF tend to compensate to the listening window, and the on-axis response has bumps.

The first contour line might be ref SPL-3dB.
And you should remind even a 1dB bump in the on-axis corresponds probably over +5deg in the -3dB beamwidth.

This is the trick they used to make the "appealing figure" for their catalogue.

Genelec 83*1 is a hell of a lot cheaper and the measurements look great without any cheap trick because it actually measured superb.

I think "cheap trick" is unfair. It's true that KEF's Uni-Qs are uneven precisely on-axis, but their reasoning is that it's the listening window that matters more, and that the unevenness is VERY narrow - it's an interference effect from the tangerine waveguide that only occurs precisely on-axis that is only really detectable with measuring devices that line up precisely with it.

I feel that normalising dispersion plots to on-axis frequency response in that case makes them look much worse than they really are. The lumps that become visible are not real dispersion unevenness, they're just artefacts of the precisely-on-axis unevenness.

If the on-axis-normalised dispersion plot looked smooth while the on-axis was uneven, all that would mean was that the very localised unevenness had spread, which you wouldn't want.

Normalising against listening window response feels like it would be a better approach generally. And arguably normalising dispersion plots at all is a cheap trick to try to show good dispersion of a bad frequency response. The unnormalised plot is reality - the actual frequency response being dispersed.

(Maybe they could actually sidestep the issue by declaring the reference axis to be a few degrees off centre, as the Spinorama rules permit. Then the on-axis unevenness wouldn't show up at all, being between sampling points).

 

[abdo123]

Don't be fooled.
The actual directivity is not that clean, it's NOT normalized.

KEF tend to compensate to the listening window, and the on-axis response has bumps.

The first contour line might be ref SPL-3dB.
And you should remind even a 1dB bump in the on-axis corresponds probably over +5deg in the -3dB beamwidth.

This is the trick they used to make the "appealing figure" for their catalogue.

Genelec 83*1 is a hell of a lot cheaper and the measurements look great without any cheap trick because it actually measured superb.

Oh yes the guy who designed a speaker and shows measurements using 1/3 octave smoothing has the audacity to tell us not to get fooled by KEF.

L M A O.

 

[Zvu]

Possibly but, the HP for the midrange is at 450Hz for the Meta Blade 2, while for the original Blade 2, it is 320Hz. That can be a compensation in terms of power rating and compression.

It hope that is the reason. But then there is the case of larger Blade 1 Meta.

OG KEF Blade has a 3inch voice coil for midrange driver, does this mean that now the REF series has the same size and magnet structure? If so, I would think that would take away from Blade being special and worth an extra $$$.

New Blade midrange seem to utilize 50mm voice coil, which is what we saw in Q, R and Reference series so far.

That being said, everything is a compromise and we never saw detailed measurements for old Blade midrange so we don't really know its weaknesses - provided it has any.

 

[thewas]

That being said, everything is a compromise and we never saw detailed measurements for old Blade midrange so we don't really know its weaknesses - provided it has any.

German magazine Audio had measured a quite high lower mids distortion on the old Blade 1 which newer models didn't have, so I guess it wasn't that great:

Source: https://www.connect.de/testbericht/kef-blade-1221650.html

 

[Zvu]

I am aware of that graph. Since Kef uses low order (1 and 2 order electrical) we can't know if the distortion origins from woofers or midrange. And how would steeper slopes influence it.

Now, it is possible that old Blade midrange measured really bad regarding distortion lower in frequency and that's the reason it was not used in comparison to the new Meta midrange, so you might be right.

What ever the case may be, i really liked Blade 2 sound and i'm eager to give a listen to Blade 2 meta.

I also liked Muon with Blade UniQ very much, but it was playing in a very large room so had no 3D image.

 

[thewas]

From the distortion curve form and frequency range I am betting it comes from the mid driver.

 

[syr1990]

On another thread I see people circulating (baseless?) rumours of some sort of LS50+KC62 combo floorstander.

That's potentially plausible, extending their active offering range beyond the teeny LSX (II) and bookshelf LS50, leveraging the development already done on both LS50 Wireless II and KC62.

The KEF dealer I spoke to a couple months ago said there were Meta versions of the Reference line coming out (which has turned out to be the case). He also said a floorstanding version of the LS50 is coming out. So take that for what it's worth.

 

[pablolie]

The KEF dealer I spoke to a couple months ago said there were Meta versions of the Reference line coming out (which has turned out to be the case). He also said a floorstanding version of the LS50 is coming out. So take that for what it's worth.

You can always wait for the next thing. Or you can get immediate gratification in what's here and now, in the certain knowledge any future improvements will be incremental and fully live up to the law of diminishing results that has become ever more so for several years...

 

[syr1990]

You can always wait for the next thing. Or you can get immediate gratification in what's here and now, in the certain knowledge any future improvements will be incremental and fully live up to the law of diminishing results that has become ever more so for several years...

Completely agree. There are already so many great options out there now.

If the LS50 floorstander does pan out to be true, it'll be interesting to see how it fits in KEF's range (especially considering the floorstanders in the R series). If it is active, like someone else suggested, that would seem to significantly deferentiate those products. Would be interesting to see, as I can't think of too many active floorstanders off the top of my head.

 

[pablolie]

Completely agree. There are already so many great options out there now.

If the LS50 floorstander does pan out to be true, it'll be interesting to see how it fits in KEF's range (especially considering the floorstanders in the R series). If it is active, like someone else suggested, that would seem to significantly deferentiate those products. Would be interesting to see, as I can't think of too many active floorstanders off the top of my head.

I would actually be more interested in a simple LS50 wireless with built-in room correction and optimization capabilities for 2 subs... provided they keep its UniQ worthy of being part of the flagship series.
I have also made an offer for a Blade 2 in racing red, but deep down inside I think 2:1 and 2:2 system are easier to optimize, and you leave a lot of designed in $ potential with full range floorstanders these days if you Dirac them...

 

[Crosstalk]

I would actually be more interested in a simple LS50 wireless with built-in room correction and optimization capabilities for 2 subs... provided they keep the UniQ worthy of being part of the flagship series.

when meta is considerably better there is no reason to get regular version!

 

[Sgidora]

I would actually be more interested in a simple LS50 wireless with built-in room correction and optimization capabilities for 2 subs... provided they keep the UniQ worthy of being part of the flagship series.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't something like the MiniDSP SHD be a perfect fit for this use case?

I also ask, because I'm currently trying to decide an upgrade path from the LS50s that I have right now, for between $5k-10k.
Torn between LS50 Meta + KC62 (x2?) + MiniDSP SHD, or used Reference 1. The amp I'm using is an Arcam a49.
If Kef announced an active LS60 product, I guess I could consider selling the amp as well and going all in with that but I'm hesitant as I use vinyl and prefer to stick with passives and separates.

 

[Crosstalk]

Oh yes the guy who designed a speaker and shows measurements using 1/3 octave smoothing has the audacity to tell us not to get fooled by KEF.

L M A O.

L M A O

 

[pablolie]

when meta is considerably better there is no reason to get regular version!

clearly I am talking about a fictional future version that doesn't exist.

 

[pablolie]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't something like the MiniDSP SHD be a perfect fit for this use case?

I also ask, because I'm currently trying to decide an upgrade path from the LS50s that I have right now, for between $5k-10k.
Torn between LS50 Meta + KC62 (x2?) + MiniDSP SHD, or used Reference 1. The amp I'm using is an Arcam a49.
If Kef announced an active LS60 product, I guess I could consider selling the amp as well and going all in with that but I'm hesitant as I use vinyl and prefer to stick with passives and separates.

Can't go totally totally wrong either way, anyhow.

My personal opinion these days is that amps that afford us the flexibility to drive fantastic standmounters and separate active subs, drive them optimally, position them optimally and top it all off with Dirac magic dust... gives us far more flexibility when it comes to changes.

Nobody ever measures the potential of that in reviews - not here nor anywhere else... The measurement protocols that still rule audio are based on the imo obsolete premise that audio nirvana must be achieved with a traditional, 1980s style pure stereo setup with two full range speakers. My personal experience seems to indicate there are better alternatives. But we all have opinions and priorities. My only question is... if you (not directed at the OP just in general) plan to use a sub anyhow, why do these imo minimal measurement deltas matter to you that much, since you're not going to drive the speakers the way they were measured anyhow?

 

[MatrixRabbit2]

Of course, I literally just replaced my KEF’s last week! Oh well, so far the Revel 228be sounds better and was cheaper ($11K). Worth a try, and I’m sure the 328’s really sing with the extra bass.

 

[Arc Acoustics]

And arguably normalising dispersion plots at all is a cheap trick to try to show good dispersion of a bad frequency response. The unnormalised plot is reality - the actual frequency response being dispersed.

Nah, you can show the on-axis response separately.
If it was a bad frequency response, It is SO OBVIOUS, you can not hide it.
And if it has truly good directivity, there is absolutely no problem with normalizing, which KEF is not in the case.

You are listening to the direct path at "some-axis", not the average of LW, so unevenness of the on and off-axis response inside the LW is already a bad thing.

Oh yes the guy who designed a speaker and shows measurements using 1/3 octave smoothing has the audacity to tell us not to get fooled by KEF.

L M A O.

Well, 1/3 octave smoothing is absolutely SH*T, I agree with you, but where comes the SH*T from at the first place?
Miss-quote maybe?