KEF's meta material gimmick?

There are lots of reviewers who had the original LS50s and then tried the LS50 Meta who found big or small differences so you could check them out.

I bought the LS50 Metas recently used and once I found a set up that really made them sing, I am happy with them. 

I have the original LS-50s and have heard the Metas. There is a small but distinct improvement in the high end without doubt. More amazing to me is KEF keeping the same pricing. All that said, the LS-50 is one of the most frequently mis-used speakers on the market. It is a nearfield monitor, and in smaller treated rooms is capable of extraordinary performance. In medium and large rooms, my own living room as an example, they simply sounded lost. In my office, they sound extraordinary. Is Meta material market hype? No and yes No, it actually works- as claimed. Was that leveraged by KEF's Marketing Department? Yes. That's their job description - to drive demand for their product. And in their case, they can back it up, something not all audio companies, large or small, can claim..

No more of a gimmick than any other manufacturer using their versions of light, stiff and responsive speaker cone material...

@panzrwagn  I agree 100% on the small room setup, like my office. Especially with the matching KC62 sub. However, for me the improvements over the old LS50 were huge. The Meta is a much cleaner sounding speaker that just disappears. Now I have my best gear on them, so I do know that makes a difference.

I wouldn’t be surprised to find out meta material is cheaper and easier to implement than the previous solution. I think the reason ls50 owners hear a bigger difference than blade owners is because the previous ls50 didn’t address the tweeter backwave, correct me if I’m wrong but the blades used a different uniq that used a vented magnet, but my memory is thin here. Each line kef produces at a different price point thus different drivers.