KEF Blade 2 meta vs Reference 5 meta?…..which is better?

yes……I’d agree on the point source alignment.…..I’m just not sure that the complex design of the Blade justifies the design choice over a conventional forward firing WWCWW.

The Blade has it‘s placement limitations for sure……side wall reflections have to be considered and as such, given the size of the speaker and the distance required to effectively separate two of em, you’ve now got a soundstage wall of a MINIMUM of 15 ft or 3 meters. These dimensions are scarce in the realm of average folk…..and less likely to be acceptably consumed with 22k speakers by the family unit. I’m a pragmatist….I’ve stated it often….and I believe most DIY folks come from a pragmatic position……build something sensible on all fronts….meets their needs, environment and pockets.

Blade 2 horizontal directivity:
KEF-Blade-2-Meta-Horizontal-Contour-Plot-Normalized.png


Kef R11:
KEF R11 Meta Floorstanding Tower Stereo Speaker horizontal directivity measurement.png


I don't know if it's just me, but I'd swear the blade has a narrower horizontal beam than the R11. Not perfect, but I see nothing that validates your worry of the blade side woofers that wouldn't be a worry with the R11. An even larger worry on the R11 I'd say.

Is it just the side mount of the woofers that we clearly see that makes you worry this much about them? Because in real life they actually do result in a narrower horizontal pattern when placed this way. They kind of act like a bigger source with more beam forming, not like 4 separate woofers.

You can keep calling it a design exercise, I'd call it form follows function. It's closer to the elusive point source this way. Is it ideal? Not just yet. There's still room for improvement. But it's pretty clever once you look at what it achieves instead of what the eye sees and wrongfully imagine the things it doesn't do.

Edit: I guess I should have made the images equally in size so the scales match up. It would be even more obvious to see my point that way.
 
THE ULTIMATE QUESTION IN AUDIO ... is ???

Before making any judgements about a speaker in your listening room you need to test your setup conditions with this ultimate recording :

What if both speakers are rendering the spatial image equally good?

And isn't hearing the final sentence about the presentation?

Why do you rely on simulations/measurements , those one-dimensional toolz for foolz :)

Track 4 should be also tested outdoors , if room properties are in doubt ...

Vice versa : Optimize the room first! (1st reflection points etc)

regards , Deep Thought :)

 
Why do you rely on simulations/measurements , those one-dimensional toolz for foolz :)

Because they actually work to improve my listening pleasure? :D

Good point, I didn't consider the side placement is essentially adding some horizontal separation between the woofers so narrowing directivity. Just as vauable as the vertical directivity offered by WWCWW.

It isn't ideal and the directivity chart shows it, but it does work.
 
Blade 2 horizontal directivity:
KEF-Blade-2-Meta-Horizontal-Contour-Plot-Normalized.png


Kef R11:
KEF R11 Meta Floorstanding Tower Stereo Speaker horizontal directivity measurement.png


I don't know if it's just me, but I'd swear the blade has a narrower horizontal beam than the R11. Not perfect, but I see nothing that validates your worry of the blade side woofers that wouldn't be a worry with the R11. An even larger worry on the R11 I'd say.
No worries……50 degrees to 1k is more than fine. The R11 could have used a round over on the baffle which would have smoothed out the horizontal as well……that’s easy

What is concerning is that you’d need to spend another $17k to get a Directivity extension lower……..if I had a ‘worry’….it would be that.

As I mentioned earlier, I WANT the room to be part of the performance…..the 3D space Synergy that emerges. Highly directive midbass just sounds fake…..there’s no coupling of the energy at volume. I’ve recorded in many great rooms and the drum rooms are always the most memorable….placement of the room ribbons is critical so you can capture the ‘actual’ room decay desired. Otherwise….it’s back to expensive headphones and headspace.……nothing more ‘pragmatic‘ than that…….to the point of defeating the purpose.
 
Been think outside the box after my last post, recalling my tour of Abbey Road a while back ( never worked there…..beyond my status) and admiring the B&W 800 monitors that were in nearly every control room (not every really, but I think I counted 5 installations)…….the spherical midrange housing……hmmm

I wonder how the Uni Q would do installed in a 10-12” sphere?
 
What is concerning is that you’d need to spend another $17k to get a Directivity extension lower……..if I had a ‘worry’….it would be that.

As I mentioned earlier, I WANT the room to be part of the performance…..the 3D space Synergy that emerges. Highly directive midbass just sounds fake…..there’s no coupling of the energy at volume. I’ve recorded in many great rooms and the drum rooms are always the most memorable….placement of the room ribbons is critical so you can capture the ‘actual’ room decay desired. Otherwise….it’s back to expensive headphones and headspace.……nothing more ‘pragmatic‘ than that…….to the point of defeating the purpose.
I thought we were talking about the design and DIY, not cost of the original.

Adding some directivity in the mid-bass will not remove the room from the sound, just reduce it a little. I for one do not like modal resonances in the mid-bass in fact chesty vocals where some frequency goes ommmmm annoys me greatly.
 
We are……all fwd firing woofers allow for more placement options in smaller spaces and the build-ease of the construction would be simpler than prototyping a Blade enclosure.

My comment on cost was to justify my earlier statement on hi design and the associated cost…….who KEF was likely marketing these to…….it ain’t high end audiophiles……they don’t cost enough to make the cut. Lol……..and it ain’t the pragmatic listener who’d likely rather spend the difference on a Euro trip or a new kitchen for the missus.
 
yes……I’d agree on the point source alignment.…..I’m just not sure that the complex design of the Blade justifies the design choice over a conventional forward firing WWCWW.

The Blade has it‘s placement limitations for sure……side wall reflections have to be considered and as such, given the size of the speaker and the distance required to effectively separate two of em, you’ve now got a soundstage wall of a MINIMUM of 15 ft or 3 meters. These dimensions are scarce in the realm of average folk…..and less likely to be acceptably consumed with 22k speakers by the family unit. I’m a pragmatist….I’ve stated it often….and I believe most DIY folks come from a pragmatic position……build something sensible on all fronts….meets their needs, environment and pockets.

I think KEF brought the Blade to market to find a common ground…..hi design meets high function. The additional $12-15k might just be all high design…..i‘m working this out here and in my head. Double blind in the same room the R11 Meta vs the Blade?……..who prefers what? And then quantified…….$18,000 left to spare?………seems even the mildly pragmatic might appreciate the alternative.

High end audio is anything BUT pragmatic…..this is self evident and needs no further dissection.……the mantra goes insanely beyond diminishing returns. Could a much more cost effective fwd firing WWCWW using the Uni Q compete with the Blade on a purely unsighted subjective battlefield?…….that’s the intent of this thread. Given I actually listen to music for a living (half of what I do to survive) and instigated such battles, I’m pretty confident it’s possible.…..subjectively without institutional interference is an eye opening experience.
well, if you want to be pragmatic, that is an entirely different story :)
 
We are……all fwd firing woofers allow for more placement options in smaller spaces
The data doesn't suggest that to me. I think narrower mid-bass horizontal directivity means less troublesome placement close to side walls.

Personally I love reading about those DIY projects that are not pragmatic :D I still remember drooling over the photos of ShinObiwans speakers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The data doesn't suggest that to me. I think narrower mid-bass horizontal directivity means less troublesome placement close to side walls.

Personally I love reading about those DIY projects that are not pragmatic :D I still remember drooling over the photos of ShinObiwans speakers.
There’s NO WAY that woofers firing right against side walls down to 40hz are not going to be problematic…..the laws of physics still exist and directivity isn’t an epiphany.

I think it’s really important to recognize the difference between nearfield measurements and what things actually look and sound like at the LP……..we’re getting farther and farther away from it.
 
So do you guys think the Satori coax is good enough or is it better to buy a used pair of R3's and scavenge the drivers from them?

The Satori got more surface area and could probably be crossed a little lower wich can't be negative, but is the tweeter integration good enough?

https://www.soundimports.eu/en/sb-a...2DDSk_7tMwYRTki77zKJwJwtqDY08XwxoCNKwQAvD_BwE
Harvest the drivers from a pair of Q350’s then…..the Meta material advantage can be realized without the price tag and mambo jumbo…….put the Uni Q in a larger enclosure with walls well lined and add an aperoidic vent……nearly the same results….at least to the point that maybe…..maybe you can hear a difference…….unless sighted listening is your thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user