@big_greg
Interested to read your adding CS2.3 to your KEF Reference 1. I recently added KEF LS50 Metas to my CS2.3 and CS2.4. Both of us are new to our new brand it seems, and we both have ’enough’ watts for all speakers. While the Reference 1s are 5x the price of my LS50s, it seems there’s enough to warrant comparing to the 2.3s.
One could argue the 2.3s are a floor-standing Ref1 with aluminum coax mid/tweet in a waveguide (tho the uni-q far more technically advanced) and vented aluminum woofer, and their (projected) current pricing probably similar to each other, though of course the Thiel time/phase coherence is the biggest design difference.
I’d be curious how your listening impressions develop, and surprised if you find the 2.3s overall so much the better speaker to the point of selling the Reference 1s! Certainly elements where the Thiels will have an ’edge’, especially once you grock the benefits of full coherence.
I’d add that the 2.3s aren’t particularly bright in the sense of a rising treble/tweeter output, but have an upper midrange that is (to exaggerate for clarity) too forward, unrefined, unruly, and tough to tame, the ’edge’ you describe, so aiming them straight ahead is best, away from walls. This doesn’t really show up on various frequency response plots, but is the biggest difference to the 2.4s, where that trait is completely tamed. The 2.3s image better than the 2.4s and I wonder if you find them better than your KEFs in this respect. (I find my LS50 Metas ability to throw a soundstage into the entire room much better than my 2.4s)
I’d say the key 2.3 setup parameter is their distance apart from each other versus their (minimum 8’) distance to the listener. I find my KEFs sound best in the the exact position I’ve set up my 2.4s for the long-term. Also tweaking the distance to the back wall for some bass reinforcement as needed. Have fun!
