Are the KEF Blade/Blade 2 Metas a Significant Upgrade from Blade?

My LS50 Metas are maybe broken-in today and I am amazed at how much better it is than the old LS50. So much more clarity, better imaging, and a real effortless sound. I never felt that the LS50 sound veiled but today I do. In comparison, the old LS50 seems to be constrained somehow. Though I never had that feeling prior to comparing with the LS50 Meta today.

The Meta also seems to have better bass. I do not even have the fast KEF KC62 sub back in the system yet. KEF Support is holding my sub hostage. Not sure what the heck they are doing with it.

I cannot wait to buy the Blade 2 Meta for my Livingroom. The Blade 2 Meta must be phenomenal.

I was DM’ing someone about a speaker for the Krell K-300i integrated they just bought and I mentioned the TAD ME1, which were great with Luxman gear (slightly warmer than Krell). After today’s LS50 Meta revelations I told him to try the LS50 Meta or Reference 1 Meta (depending on room size) before the much more expensive TAD ME1. The ME1 has a bit more detail but I do NOT feel the sound is overall better than the LS50 Meta.

I thought the TAD ME1 was better than the old KEF Reference and the old LS50. However, today I think the Reference 1 Meta could be as good as the TAD ME1. The LS50 Meta sure sounds as good as the ME1 in my 12 x 11 x 9 treated office. The ME1 is too big for this room.

I was planning on buying the $12K CAD Yamaha NS3000 from Canada, if the LS50 Meta was not great. Those plans are off.

I have about $15K of real clean sounding gear in front of the LS50 META and close to 400 watts of power so that must help the LS50 Meta a lot.

What I notice when we get to the $25k speakers is how smooth the mids and treble are. Good, affordable speakers will squawk or chirp with hard recordings and the early uniq speakers could be ruthless. The Blade uniq is already as smooth as any out there and is unique to the model. Comparing the ls50 to the ls50 meta isn't indicative to the blade to blade meta as the blade uniq was already addressing the backwave to a level none of the other non meta speakers did. 

blade uniq was already addressing the backwave to a level none of the other non meta speakers did.

Can you reference more info on this statement. My understanding is that the old Blade uniQ is slightly compromised in relation to the uniQ in the old Reference line so as to fit the enclosure.

Audiotroy also posted some info about the Blade driver having some upgraded part compared to the LS50 non-Meta  but nothing related to back wave elimination.

Most companies that address the back wave use something elaborate such as the tube in the Yamaha NS5000, the tapered tubes in the Vivid lineup. I believe the Meta is Kef’s first real push into this area.

A comparison of KEF LS60 and pair of KC62s with Blade 2 Meta would be interesting. Wonder how close you get with an MSRP of $10K ($7K for LS60, $3K for KC62s). I’m using a pair of KC62s with LS50 Wireless II in my living room.  The SW controlled DSP KEF provides for the wireless speakers does an excellent job of integrating the speakers with the subs.

db

The uniq driver in the blades uses a vented magnet, I believe it’s the 10th gen uniq with the custom tweeter. Each line of kefs use a different uniq with the blade and blade 2 being unique to even the reference, now the ref and blade meta use the same uniq driver, while the R uses another unit and the q line different still.