@ OP
I´ve owned the original C4s almost since they came out and over the years have listened to some pretty well regarded speakers since then, (including but not limited to the original Blades, not the 2s, older KEFs, Avalon, Proac, Pass´active Rushmores,Harbeth, Martin Logan CLX, Raidho, Sonus Faber and others),when the upgrade itch unsettled my tranquility and sense of satistfaction with what I already had acheived in putting together my sytem.
In fact I was very interested in the Blades based on curiosity concerning their concentric driver and I must admit their great looks from an industrial design perspective. As always personal taste will influence opinion so let me describe mine. What I´ve noticed over the years is the tendency in hi end design is towards speed, ¨accuracy¨ ?, detail, resolution, resolution and more resolution. Definitely not my cup of tea since most recordings are not up to snuff to be held up so close to such inspection.
Most of the above descriptions about the C4s seem to me pretty accurate. They do need volume turned up to sound their best and that requires plenty of current. Also needed is plenty of space for them to open up and project a huge soundstage with electrostatic like coheviseness and imaging. Bass can be pretty awesome, almost full range but not quite with one caveat. Unles they have enough space they will sound muddied and indistinct as Atkinson described in his review. Not only that but the midrange and treble will suffer as a result. I wonder why he even bothers to review full range speakers with his obvious limitation in room size.Many find their treble response subdued, specially compared to the ilk of metalic or ceramic tweeters. Personally I was convinced by the Esotar tweeter ever since I heard them on Sonus Faber Extremas. In fact only some ribbon or plasma tweeters I consider superior and then there are implications in integrating those with drivers of different materials but that is totally different matter.
But summing it up, the main reason I have kept my C4s thru the years is as their publicity used to push is their total honesty to the source. As an example there is an older late 50´s mono recording of a string quartett that I use to evaluate string tone which was obviously recorded using tubes. Well you would swear my system was tube based which it is not. SS pre and 400 watt mono amps !
So as you can see I´m pretty biased towards the C4s but based on your described room conditions I´m pretty sure they are not for you at this time. I´d look more at different the Harbeth offerings, all great speakers at their and I stress reasonable price points or just keep your speakers that seem to satisfy you. Changes are not always for the best.
On a further point, has anyone noticed that KEFs top of the line $150,000 USD Muon is a total ripoff of the C4s cabinet design ?
I´ve owned the original C4s almost since they came out and over the years have listened to some pretty well regarded speakers since then, (including but not limited to the original Blades, not the 2s, older KEFs, Avalon, Proac, Pass´active Rushmores,Harbeth, Martin Logan CLX, Raidho, Sonus Faber and others),when the upgrade itch unsettled my tranquility and sense of satistfaction with what I already had acheived in putting together my sytem.
In fact I was very interested in the Blades based on curiosity concerning their concentric driver and I must admit their great looks from an industrial design perspective. As always personal taste will influence opinion so let me describe mine. What I´ve noticed over the years is the tendency in hi end design is towards speed, ¨accuracy¨ ?, detail, resolution, resolution and more resolution. Definitely not my cup of tea since most recordings are not up to snuff to be held up so close to such inspection.
Most of the above descriptions about the C4s seem to me pretty accurate. They do need volume turned up to sound their best and that requires plenty of current. Also needed is plenty of space for them to open up and project a huge soundstage with electrostatic like coheviseness and imaging. Bass can be pretty awesome, almost full range but not quite with one caveat. Unles they have enough space they will sound muddied and indistinct as Atkinson described in his review. Not only that but the midrange and treble will suffer as a result. I wonder why he even bothers to review full range speakers with his obvious limitation in room size.Many find their treble response subdued, specially compared to the ilk of metalic or ceramic tweeters. Personally I was convinced by the Esotar tweeter ever since I heard them on Sonus Faber Extremas. In fact only some ribbon or plasma tweeters I consider superior and then there are implications in integrating those with drivers of different materials but that is totally different matter.
But summing it up, the main reason I have kept my C4s thru the years is as their publicity used to push is their total honesty to the source. As an example there is an older late 50´s mono recording of a string quartett that I use to evaluate string tone which was obviously recorded using tubes. Well you would swear my system was tube based which it is not. SS pre and 400 watt mono amps !
So as you can see I´m pretty biased towards the C4s but based on your described room conditions I´m pretty sure they are not for you at this time. I´d look more at different the Harbeth offerings, all great speakers at their and I stress reasonable price points or just keep your speakers that seem to satisfy you. Changes are not always for the best.
On a further point, has anyone noticed that KEFs top of the line $150,000 USD Muon is a total ripoff of the C4s cabinet design ?