I get whole point source coherence thing with the side firing woofers but with an Xo point of 440hz for the Blade 2, my brain can’t process the off axis imaging discontinuance where as the Ref 5 with all drivers fwd firing makes much more sense.
I ask the question as I have a pair of white Q150’s with scratched up cabinets I bought open box a few years ago on impulse for $250 that I had intended to just paint…….but now I’m thinking to harvest the Uni Q drivers instead and build my own active WWCWW. Thoughts?
I ask the question as I have a pair of white Q150’s with scratched up cabinets I bought open box a few years ago on impulse for $250 that I had intended to just paint…….but now I’m thinking to harvest the Uni Q drivers instead and build my own active WWCWW. Thoughts?
KEF makes both of them work extremely well according to reviews. I would think your front firing WWCWW would be easier to DIY than a Blade DIY version. FWIW, the Q150 coax is more of a mid-woofer/tweeter coax where the Blade coax is a mid-range/tweeter coax. They are definitely different. Go for it!
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r11-meta-tower-speaker-review.53282/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_blade2_meta/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-r11-meta-tower-speaker-review.53282/
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kef_blade2_meta/
At the time i was surprised, but when Aaron measured Tysen V2 and developed the XO it was at 450 Hz. I was surprised at the high XO with the 5.25” side firing woofers. But it works fine.
Remeber at these frequencies teh bass is omnidirectional.larger woofers might be a bit more directional.
I am sure KEF measured these things within a inch of their life.
dave
Remeber at these frequencies teh bass is omnidirectional.larger woofers might be a bit more directional.
I am sure KEF measured these things within a inch of their life.
dave
Based on both the data and intuition, if I were interested in imaging (and I am) I'd take the blade, every time.
Just look at its smoother frequency response but even more telling, the horizontal and vertical pattern control. And on top of that, the diffraction reducing shape of the enclosure will make it the top contender in a battle about imaging. Just my opinion
.
Woofer placement in the Blade is actually much closer together than when they are front mounted, which is demonstrated clearly in the horizontal and vertical pattern.
Just look at its smoother frequency response but even more telling, the horizontal and vertical pattern control. And on top of that, the diffraction reducing shape of the enclosure will make it the top contender in a battle about imaging. Just my opinion
.Woofer placement in the Blade is actually much closer together than when they are front mounted, which is demonstrated clearly in the horizontal and vertical pattern.
but the blade directivity isn't perfect. there is some lobing to the side and back in the 500hz to 1Khz range. Perhaps this contributes to envelopment with adequate spacing from the walls. The R11 on the other hand has completely lost H pattern control by 1 Khz and so would also need good spacing from walls. These problems with the walls in smaller rooms lead me towards cardioid.
@wesayso - you know the blades wouldn't fit in your room!
@wesayso - you know the blades wouldn't fit in your room!
Just did a "copy" of KEF R900 with a type R midrange from R3, surrounded by two WO24P-8 in 75 liters closed. Much more fun and punch than all those small ported woofers - IMO
Oh, I very much like the idea of force cancelation with the side-mounted drivers, but can we really hear that? Or do we just sleep better at night?
Also, it seems that the more expensive versions of KEF speakers, just have lower sensitivity, because the "better" filter, that smooth out the response "simply" "eat" more of the total available SPL potential the vanilla drivers have.
We were a few guys listening to the R7 Meta, and the sales guy told us that the R5 Reference was smoother, but lower sensitivity... and way more expensive. Mmmm... I love active filtering
Oh, I very much like the idea of force cancelation with the side-mounted drivers, but can we really hear that? Or do we just sleep better at night?
Also, it seems that the more expensive versions of KEF speakers, just have lower sensitivity, because the "better" filter, that smooth out the response "simply" "eat" more of the total available SPL potential the vanilla drivers have.
We were a few guys listening to the R7 Meta, and the sales guy told us that the R5 Reference was smoother, but lower sensitivity... and way more expensive. Mmmm... I love active filtering
The Blades most certainly have some placement limitations over the all front firing systems. Thankfully I have the space for either.
Horizontal directivity control could be extended down to 500hz or so with just the coax in a passive cardioid enclosure…….with a steep high pass, I doubt the Uni Q would suffer any power compression or added distortion for it. Something like that I would only attempt in a conventional front firing system though……side vents like Amphion uses in their flagship tower.
Physically transmitted vibration from woofers in the modal range of cabinet panels is something that might be audible IME. If it's a 'free' upgrade simply the placement of woofers I'd take it.
I'd like to do dual sets like the blade 4x woofers per speaker), but I'd put one set near the top third of the cabinet and one near the bottom. This will increase directivity pattern control vertically, drive room modes more evenly, as well as cancel some of the internal cabinet modes. In home theater I think ive seen this called a double for quad woofer array when built in to a front wall. Somebody remind me the phrase / abbreviation.
I'd like to do dual sets like the blade 4x woofers per speaker), but I'd put one set near the top third of the cabinet and one near the bottom. This will increase directivity pattern control vertically, drive room modes more evenly, as well as cancel some of the internal cabinet modes. In home theater I think ive seen this called a double for quad woofer array when built in to a front wall. Somebody remind me the phrase / abbreviation.
I dunno... look at the distortion of D&D 8C. That passive cardioid design sucks up a lot of excursion.
it costs you about 6db where excursion limited, (which wouldn't be the case if limited to 500 Hz up) but you can get that back in the system design if you feel you need it
D&D 8C reviews show and Geddes has been saying for years that a little bit of THD doesn't really matter
so too with Sigberg Audio cardioid coax's
but I think if you are cardioid only down to 500 Hz, that directivity change where you cross to woofers may be problematic
D&D 8C reviews show and Geddes has been saying for years that a little bit of THD doesn't really matter
so too with Sigberg Audio cardioid coax's
but I think if you are cardioid only down to 500 Hz, that directivity change where you cross to woofers may be problematic
The Uni-Q driver isn’t efficient at all, so losing even 2db is problematic I would feel. The room these would go in has 5ft to the sidewalls from the intended placement so while I briefly entertained the notion of pattern control, it’s really not necessary in my use case.
Offsetting the bottom pair closer to the floor might pose a problem with vertical lobing to the Uni Q though….I’d need to keep that coax centered at seated ear height of around 40”……..I don’t think that would be worth the tradeoff……id have to cross the coax lower which kinda defeats the purpose for a higher output system mated with 4 6.5” woofers.
Likely. Dramatically lowers the energy going into the box that casues resonances — much, much less likely to resonate and much easier to build the box to make it so,
You can hear box resonances. At least you should.
dave
I guess you could filter the woofers near the floor to come in lower in freq, especily if you have linear phase dsp?
Both are different compromises IMHO.
The Reference 5 could do with large roundovers.
The Blade 2 Meta could do with a lower crossover point, but the cone area of that UniQ MF means that it can’t reach down low enough to do a 120-150Hz crossover.
No doubt that is an amazing cabinet beyond most DIYers. IMHO it looks like Alien technology that came to Jack in a dream (or BEM/FEM).
The Reference 5 could do with large roundovers.
The Blade 2 Meta could do with a lower crossover point, but the cone area of that UniQ MF means that it can’t reach down low enough to do a 120-150Hz crossover.
No doubt that is an amazing cabinet beyond most DIYers. IMHO it looks like Alien technology that came to Jack in a dream (or BEM/FEM).
Last edited: