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

Thanks; you may be correct. I’ve been reading some owner reviews of Blade Meta on the KEF Owners Group on Facebook, but most are from Europe. I’ll try giving KEF USA a call. 

Hi yyzsantabarbara:

I have been using VAC preamplifiers for 20 years and my Signature IIa mates  beautifully with the Coda 16.0, making a great amplifier even better! I truly have no interest in trying other preamplifiers as all my VACs have mated great with SS and tube amplifiers. Highly recommend any and all models from the Renaissance V on up. All the best!

Thank you all for your most helpful comments! 
I am thoroughly enjoying my original KEF Blade 2s driven by my Coda 16.0. Can’t really justify spending the additional funds on the new Metas or the time in selling my like new originals. My 66 yo hearing, which has seen/heard better days, may or may not fully appreciate the upgrade. Still interested though!

I’m afraid I haven’t heard the Michi amplifiers live but I’ve heard and read many accolades. I will say that I’ve found the Coda 16 to be a very special match for my Blade 2s, refined, musical, authoritative, with as much power as my Blades will ever desire in my room. All the best!

I noticed in a very recent Stereophile review of Blade 2 Meta that the reviewer did not address a sonic comparison with the original Blade 2, which won component of the year 2015. Curious, as this would be of significant interest. Do you think this omission might have been a favor to the manufacturer, rather than saying Blade 2 Meta is a mildly improved version?

Hi mgrif104:

Thank you for your response! I know that KEF is one of the finest loudspeaker companies ever and supports its work with exhaustive documentation. I own the Blade 2 and love them. I was just hoping for a word or two about the sonic improvements. (I know of the technical improvements). Thanks again!!

All 4 woofers are indeed active. Like I said, not comparing the Metas to the loudspeaker of the year 2015 (Blade 2) was a significant oversight and would have been a logical comparison and valuable to many.

Sorry for the term active on the Blades. I was informing that the Blade has no passive radiators, powered by internal air pressure only. All 4 are indeed woofers powered by the audio signal/internal crossover. 

Strange review in general, especially as you note his comparisons. As mentioned before, not comparing the Metas to Loudspeaker of the Year 2015, the original Blade 2, is a glaring omission.

Thanks for all your comments. John Hirsch; thank you and we look forward to your further comments about midrange improvements, etc with your new Blade Metas.

Enjoy!

KEF’s vented tweeters were suppose to address the same issue as Meta, back wave management; I guess not quite as effectively. A friend asked me whether he should purchase a Ref 3 Meta or used Blade 2. I told him he should try to listen to both but I’d favor an excellent condition used Blade 2.  

yyzsantabarbara:

I think both the Krell and Coda are great choices for KEF Reference and Blade models. I love my Coda 16.0/ Blade 2 setup.  I find it interesting that the dealer would not sell the original Blade at a discount and order a Blade Meta for himself.(Considering dealer cost is usually 50-55% MSRP on loudspeakers). Perhaps there was some attribute of the original Blade that appealed to him.