semente

There’s a cancellation dip to the sides of the speaker centred around 450Hz so that significant amount is unlikely. It’s certainly not visible in JA’s in-room response plot posted earlier.

The change in directivity knee seems to be at around 200Hz 45°,60°&75° https://www.soundstagenetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1540:nrc-measurements-kef-blade-two-loudspeakers&catid=77:loudspeaker-measurements&Itemid=153

Maybe you can ask Jack Oclee-Brown at A S R.

Below 80Hz the speaker acts roughly as an omni sound source, that includes ports and side woofers. Above 80Hz the port output has dropped significantly (and they can be plugged). You do have the back-to-back woofers operating as omnis for most of their operating range, which goes up to 300Hz. I think that the principle still applies but happy to be corrected. https://www.stereophile.com/content/kef-blade-two-meta-loudspeaker-measurements

You can't really assess sound quality at hi-fi shows. The best thing to do is to choose a couple of dealers who stock speakers from your shortlist and arrange a few demos, preferably at home if possible.

I understand the part about your friends preferring Klipschs but not the first sentence.

Are you using EQ? I have the back of my Reference 3s some 200mm from the wall and added a low-shelf compensation filter. That way I have managed to avoid a broadish cancellation dip centred at around 125 Hz. This diagram by Neumann indicates that the worst position for the woofer is distanced between 0.80m and 2.00m (bottom left table) from the front wall (it also shows the advantage of using subwoofers in minimising SBIR effects):

Sorry, I don't understand your post.

As you can see in the in-room response plot above the Blade 2 produces hardly any treble roll-off in the room. But the treble is effortless and there isn't the off axis flare in the presence region typical of many speakers. I suspect that the Blade 2s sound dull to some people because of the sound (deviations) that they're used to hearing, and perhaps enjoy. The Reference and R series do sound a bit dark/dull, perhaps more than that if people are used to bright-sounding speakers.

Kef speakers have narrowing directivity which makes them sound comparatively (to typical speakers) dull because of the in-room treble roll-off. (objectively speaking) The Blades are the exception, producing a relatively constant directivity above 300Hz. KEF Reference 5, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis KEF Blade Two, lateral response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis KEF Reference 5, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room (red); and of KEF Blade Two (blue) Stereophile - Kef Reference 5 measurements Stereophile - Kef Blade 2 measurements

Hi Jussi, the link you posted above for the quick start guide doesn't work. Have you posted a message describing how to upsample Spotify with HQPlayer Desktop on a Mac?

The first parameter is universal, the second parameter is a matter of opinion, and as such non-transmissible, or useless to others. I don't see this conversation leading anywhere, I yield.

The pinnacle of audiophile craze: staring at a pile of uber-expensive nondescript boxes...

But my view is that comparison don't have to come in different flavours if the assessment is performed from an observational perspective. Of course it will require an effective an standardised methodology and also a high level of training from the reviews.

My point is that the subjective qualification bit is a personal and not-transmissible matter of opinion. Other people seem to believe that subjective views resonate or have some kind of relevance to their quest for musical enjoyment. We disagree.

I thought that the point of this topic was to learn about readers preferences and potentially inform the format of future reviews but it seems I was wrong. In any case my view is that you should be proud of the space that you have created here. Cheers!

Fair enough. But then it shouldn’t matter if people value comparative reviews or not.

Yes. And person A is taller than person B. What's your point?

No, measurements may correlate or not with what I think they do, which is a very different thing. If two DACs measure differently in one parameter then one is objectively better in that parameter.

No, objective measured performance is not subjective. Your own interpretation of it is subjective. Regardless of whether or not high objective measured performance is to your liking (universality).

🙄

How do you know if high end pushes the standards of performance if you don't make use of measurements and reviews are for the most part the report of a tasting session? The problem I have with high end is that in most cases the little increment in performance does not justify the humongously massive difference in price. It's something that listening reports should focus on. High end is top performance wrapped in silk and diamonds.

I would not dump measurements and their interpretation in a single bag. The former is data, the latter an individual's use of that data. @Jud was mentioning that subjective reviews could also be used as data, subject to interpretation. But if you believe that there isn't a standard for measurements, what do you think of the standard for listening reports?

Most definitely. Value for money bias. A good review must highlight this difference.

Reading about new piece of equipment you've never heard is extremelly likely to generate some form of expectation. Same with looking at the measured performance prior to listening (i.e. A S R). I do agree that habituation may prevent the listener from improving the sound of his or her system. My first year architecture teacher told us that the quality of our designs will be governed by the spaces we've inhabited and visited as children. Whilst I don't totally agree, I see her point. Some architects did go beyond the comfortable, explored unfamiliar languages and possibilities, and they're the ones who pushed the boundaries. Taste is important but can be enslaving.