The new king of passive speakers - according to spinorama.org ranking - KEF Blade 2 Meta: preference Score without EQ 7.07 and with EQ 7.68

[Theta]

The new king of passive speakers - according to spinorama.org ranking - KEF Blade 2 Meta: preference Score without EQ 7.07 and with EQ 7.68

Two months ago, Erin from Erin`s Audio Corner was very impressed by the KEF Blade 2 Meta.
The spinorama data were exceptionell - with an extremely good score also without EQ.

But on spinorama.org there was a bug in the Graphs of the estimated in-room response.
The frequency seemed not lower down at higher frequencies. So I contacted Pierre Aubert from spinorama.org.

Pierre was so nice and corrected the bug!

You can see the corrected data in the developer site of spinorama.org:

Measurements for speaker KEF Blade 2 Meta

dev.spinorama.org

or at github with TWO DIFFERENT EQ Suggestions:

KEF Blade 2 Meta - Bug in In-Room-Frequency response "with EQ" · Issue #269 · pierreaubert/spinorama

*Bonjour Pierre, Il doit y avoir un problème avec les données d'Erins pour le Kef Blade 2 Meta ! Jetez un coup d'oeil aux données corrigées ! La correction rend la réponse en fréquence bien pire qu...

github.com

Perhaps these new graphs are on the normal spinorama.org site from tomorrow on also.

There will be also 8 new speakers - including the Nubert NuVero 60 from germany which gets 6.88 points after equalisation.
Very good, but no one-in-a-century sensation.

And the beautifull XMechanik Mechano23 DIY with a score of 6.81 points after equalisation.

KEF Blade 2 Meta Speaker Review

KEF Blade 2 Meta Speaker

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

thorsten

This clearly shows that this method and prehaps all other methods of measuring speaker is useless and misleading.

 

[Purité Audio]

This clearly shows that this method and prehaps all other methods of measuring speaker is useless and misleading.

I have found that there is a very clear correlation between measurements and actual transparency, so much do that I feel confident purchasing ( and discarding )a design purely on its measurements.
Having said that ultimately one’s decision is subjective so the ideal is to try them in your space.
Keith

 

[Chr1]

Surely, given modern DSP, FR is now the least important...
Uniform dispersion, dynamic range, power handling, and distortion characteristics are far more relevant nowadays (so long as EQ can be implemented to correct FR.)

 

[Purité Audio]

FR is 95%, a speaker can be effectively eq’d if the directivity is constant.
Obviously it is still important to choose a loudspeaker suitable for its application.
Keith

 

[mj30250]

Surely, given modern DSP, FR is now the least important...
Uniform dispersion, dynamic range, power handling, and distortion characteristics are far more relevant nowadays (so long as EQ can be implemented to correct FR.)

I don't really disagree in theory, but in reality how many speakers with poor on-axis FR have the smooth directivity needed to effectively EQ them? The number is likely rather small.

Conversely, a well-engineered speaker that offers good on/off-axis performance tends to also offer good power handling / distortion performance for whatever size/class it's in. Again, examples that run in the other direction aren't exactly plentiful.

 

[kimmosto]

The important thing to remember about the preference score is it in no way speaks to the dynamic range, power handling, or distortion characteristics of the speaker. Those factors, IMHO, are just as important as the things the preference score takes in account.

+ timing, whole concept, total directivity (average DI), slope of PIR and SP relative to on-axis, polar pattern at LF. For example, preference could be "the best existing", but speaker is worthless crap due to wrong slope of DI or acoustical concept unsuitable for possible locations in the listening room. The King Without a Kingdom.

 

[Ron Texas]

The Ascend Sierra LX is almost as good for $1,500. Besides, Dr, Toole says preference scores are obsolete.

 

[PHD]

Why do we even bother with SINAD if even one of the best speakers have a THD equivalent of a 60dB SINAD on average? That's a 0.1% THD. This means that you're good to go with a 0.01% THD Amp/Pre-amp/DAC...

 

[mj30250]

Deploying the preference score as a speaker ranking system is indeed problematic. Is it a safe bet that a speaker with a PS of 6 is going to sound better than a speaker with a PS of 1.5? Certainly. However, once you get into comparisons in the range of a 1-2 point swing, the score alone ceases to be useful and you will be better served by consulting the spinoramas, distortion measurements, etc.

Even the person who created it said as much.

You shouldn't focus on preference scores. It was only intended to help naive people interpret spinorama measurements and reduce it to a single number.

Buy a loudspeaker based on its spinoroma measurements and how loud it can play without distortion for your application. Look for flat, smooth on-axis well maintained off-axis and smooth directivity. If it has smooth directivity then you can equalize it to improve the on-axis and off-axis response.

Add a subwoofer to extend the bass response, and allow it to play louder. A subwoofer also allows you placement flexibility: place it in a position to produce the most optimal bass response.. Add several subwoofers to reduce the seat-to-seat variance in the response.
All of these things I suggest will improve the predicted score, BTW.

However, none of these things can be done without first having good measurements starting with a spin. Few manufacturers provide these but you can find them here. Otherwise, you are equalizing a speaker blindly in a room, and the chances of getting good results are greatly diminished.

 

[Ron Texas]

Why do we even bother with SINAD if even one of the best speakers have a THD equivalent of a 60dB SINAD on average? That's a 0.1% THD. This means that you're good to go with a 0.01% THD Amp/Pre-amp/DAC...

View attachment 378768

Because noise is often audible.

 

[Schollaudio]

Dumb question, What is the tonality score?

 

[Sancus]

Is it a safe bet that a speaker with a PS of 6 is going to sound better than a speaker with a PS of 1.5? Certainly.

Yep. There's something like a thousand or more speakers with data for them, if your goal is to find one to purchase, narrowing them down with the score like "not going to look at anything below a 6" is really helpful, since most people do not have the time to research, let alone listen to 1000 speakers.

Using it to say "this speaker is 0.25 better than this other speaker" is not a good use.

 

[Chr1]

I don't really disagree in theory, but in reality how many speakers with poor on-axis FR have the smooth directivity needed to effectively EQ them? The number is likely rather small.

Conversely, a well-engineered speaker that offers good on/off-axis performance tends to also offer good power handling / distortion performance for whatever size/class it's in. Again, examples that run in the other direction aren't exactly plentiful.

I use a pair of Neumann KH310s and a pair of Tannoy V12s as my L/R speakers. Either/or, but both with twin subs. The Tannoys FR is pretty rough without EQ but, like a lot of pro-audio, is actually made to be used with subs and FR correction via DSP. They actually sound pretty good and punch well above their weight if used such. For sure beyond their £220 pr s/h price. (£850 each, when new 20+ years ago.) Most likely due to their power handling, lack of distortion, and decent directivity.
Not saying they sound better than the Neumanns, but they sound way better than some boutique hifi speakers I've heard. The importance of ruler flat FR is overrated, I reckon nowadays. Unless you are old-school, using a turntable and DSP is difficult.
I see EQ speaker FR correction/tweaking, along with room correction and sub use, as kinda a given for good sound these days. Just my 2c

 

[MattHooper]

Besides, Dr, Toole says preference scores are obsolete.

Which preference scores are you talking about? Preference scores on ASR? Or the preference scores arrived at in his blind testing of loudspeakers? I can’t imagine he would disavow the latter. So could you clue me in on this?

 

[mj30250]

Which preference scores are you talking about? Preference scores on ASR? Or the preference scores arrived at in his blind testing of loudspeakers? I can’t imagine he would disavow the latter. So could you clue me in on this?

The preference, or "Olive" score noted in the OP, which is calculated based on speaker measurement data and uploaded to spinorama.org. Again, it can be useful in the right circumstances and with some understanding of how it's derived, but it should not be considered some ultimate arbiter of speaker performance.

 

[Ron Texas]

Which preference scores are you talking about? Preference scores on ASR? Or the preference scores arrived at in his blind testing of loudspeakers? I can’t imagine he would disavow the latter. So could you clue me in on this?

There's a post about it somewhere here. You can look for it or disregard my comment. I believe he meant preference scores derived from measurements.

 

[amper42]

There's a post about it somewhere here. You can look for it or disregard my comment. I believe he meant preference scores derived from measurements.

It's widely disclosed that preference scores within 2 points should not be used to determine which speaker is best. It's a nice tool for coming up with a list of possible speakers to audition, but it cannot be relied upon to determine which speaker is best for you. Way to many think the score is more important than it actually is. It's not a magic tool that will identify the best speaker. You still have to decide that after comparison listening tests. It's foolish and lazy to look at two preference scores within 2 points and think you know what to buy.

 

[Ron Texas]

It's widely disclosed that preference scores within 2 points should not be used to determine which speaker is best. It's a nice tool for coming up with a list of possible speakers to audition, but it cannot be relied upon to determine which speaker is best for you. Way to many think the score is more important than it actually is. It's not a magic tool that will identify the best speaker. You still have to decide that after comparison listening tests. It's foolish and lazy to look at two preference scores within 2 points and think you know what to buy.

Two? I thought it was more like 1 or .5. I'd like to see more discussion on that.

 

[Keith_W]

There's a post about it somewhere here. You can look for it or disregard my comment. I believe he meant preference scores derived from measurements.

He said that preference scores were a scientific tool that he and a few others came up with for a paper. Once that paper was written, they stopped using the preference score. He never intended that the preference score would be used out of context like this. I just tried to search for the Toole quote you mentioned on ASR and also in his book, but I failed But I agree with you, I definitely saw him say something like that. I wish I bookmarked that quote!

My interpretation of a preference score is - don't read too much into it. A preference score of 9.5 vs. 9.4 does not mean that one speaker is better than the other. What it means is that both speakers are likely to be preferred over a speaker with a low preference score.

 

[mj30250]

Here is the quote:

I just dipped into this thread and have a request: please, please stop putting any reliance on the calculated "scores". Learn to interpret the spinorama curves. That will have to do until we have an "educated" AI version of sound quality prediction. The ratings that were calculated by the Harman research group were done to prove a scientific point, and that done, they ceased to be used even by the people who created them. We rely on visual interpretations of the family of curves.