I haven’t heard the Reference 5 Meta’s yet, but There’s more going on in the new KEF Meta’s than them adding the rat maze. The spec’s are different. They are slightly less efficient and the crossover points are different. My Reference 5’s are 90dbs and the crossover for the tweeters are at 2500 hz. The Meta’s are 88db and the tweeters crossover at 2100 hz.
KEF's meta material gimmick?
Hi,
A thought just occured to me recently. Is KEF's Meta material just a genius marketing gimmick? I mean everyone and their grandmas reviewed the KEF LS50 Meta and they spent way too much time explaining the purpose of the meta material. I know white papers were published with conclusive results. KEF is beloved by the "measurements first" crowd so nobody bats an eye. The illustrations for the Meta material portray an intricate maze made of a some kind of gel. But isn't that just $1 piece of molded rubber? It's just a coaster relax.
I wanna bet real money that the 365+ cork coasters from IKEA ($2.50 for 2) would accomplish the exact same thing. Cork is a great sound absorbing material. It's complex. Just glue that at the back of the driver. Mission accomplished? Am I missing something?
- ...
- 34 posts total
Of course, dipole loudspeakers avoid the issue of the back wave of a tweeter (and woofer) by not having an enclosure at all. But then you have to deal with the back wave’s interaction with the wall behind the loudspeaker (not to mention the challenge of the lack of an enclosure, with all the benefits they afford). Pick yer poison! |
@yyzsantabarbara that sounds super resolving…but is it clinical sounding like a studio monitor? My worry would be fatigue, especially on recordings that aren’t very good.
|
- 34 posts total