Pre-Meta KEF Reference 1 or LS50 Meta

I thought the drivers in the Reference line were a couple steps above the ls50? 

Why would anyone want to maximize reflection?

What we actually hear is the result of many reflections, but we don't want a particular reflection to dominate.  I moved the Reference 1s closer together and eliminated toe-in.  It's been a long while since I've heard them sound so good given the many less than optimal changes I've made to their setup over the years.So I'm sticking with a rack of Ayre gear, a pair of Reference 1s, and a pair of Velodyne HGS-15s. for stereo.  This setup is augmented by a Bryston SP3 processor and four LS50s for surround.  I may or may not use the KEF Reference 204/2C -- I don't perceive the need for a center channel.

Of the three the best sounding one to my ears is the Pre Meta LS50 (which I owned).

The reason I liked them so much is the voicing, or frequency response they were given.

The Meta version of the LS50s are voiced differently and are more subdued and rolled off, as are the REF 1 which have a similar response curve of a tilted straight line. Driver material was not the only change they made to the original LS50s.

The Meta sound drier with less musical life as do the REF 1 IMHO.

The pre-Meta LS50 had a voicing similar to the Joseph Audio Pulsars which are magical sounding. A bit bright and airy with nice presence.

The originals are gems.

The KEF REF series entire line continue to be a disappointment for me given their artificial, metallic sound and extreme cost.

With your amplifier in particular, the original LS50 would sound the best.  

Some people are sensitive to stridency of metal cones, most others not as much (which I surmise based upon volume sales and positive reviews).