These 2 flavors of "uniQ 12" are the same drivers of course. What the spec sheet for the wireless somewhat sadly reveals is that the wireless is bi-amped whereas the meta doesn't offer that option.
I say sadly, because I am not that interested in a wireless, intimately tying up the very fast moving target of streaming with the speakers themselves. I'd rather have a separate streamer or streamer/amp both for agility and to not be married to the single KEF implementation (nor to its DAC).
The wireless claims -3dB FR down to 45Hz "with EQ", whereas the meta is only down to 79Hz, and -6dB 47Hz. Any reason appropriate EQ can't just be applied to the meta so as to extend the -3dB range? I mean the -6dB does go down that low anyway. Getting down that low would be stupendous as for me it would eliminate (well enough) the requirement for a subwoofer. I mean it'd be great to mate up a subwoofer but the problem is the difficulty of getting an equipment setup that has a sub out that comes in at a good price and has the form factor of a small headphone amp stack. This is for my home office where I listen at moderate volume (at best) and that really deep sub bass isn't really necessary. I'm thinking if I can get down to 60Hz I would be super happy no compromise.
Obviously I can EQ it but will it just be a mistake due to the single amp configuration? Is the extended range of the wireless really being achieved via bi amping, and not as importantly via EQ? Given that I would listen at pretty moderate volume, as long as I don't run out of headroom are each driver in the meta speakers basically pulling the proportionally requisite amount of power they need even in a single amp configuration? 100W is recommended for the meta (which is the HF power for the wireless), so I mean if I just doubled that to cover the lower bass, am I overpowering the HF and now I need to also EQ that out?
I say sadly, because I am not that interested in a wireless, intimately tying up the very fast moving target of streaming with the speakers themselves. I'd rather have a separate streamer or streamer/amp both for agility and to not be married to the single KEF implementation (nor to its DAC).
The wireless claims -3dB FR down to 45Hz "with EQ", whereas the meta is only down to 79Hz, and -6dB 47Hz. Any reason appropriate EQ can't just be applied to the meta so as to extend the -3dB range? I mean the -6dB does go down that low anyway. Getting down that low would be stupendous as for me it would eliminate (well enough) the requirement for a subwoofer. I mean it'd be great to mate up a subwoofer but the problem is the difficulty of getting an equipment setup that has a sub out that comes in at a good price and has the form factor of a small headphone amp stack. This is for my home office where I listen at moderate volume (at best) and that really deep sub bass isn't really necessary. I'm thinking if I can get down to 60Hz I would be super happy no compromise.
Obviously I can EQ it but will it just be a mistake due to the single amp configuration? Is the extended range of the wireless really being achieved via bi amping, and not as importantly via EQ? Given that I would listen at pretty moderate volume, as long as I don't run out of headroom are each driver in the meta speakers basically pulling the proportionally requisite amount of power they need even in a single amp configuration? 100W is recommended for the meta (which is the HF power for the wireless), so I mean if I just doubled that to cover the lower bass, am I overpowering the HF and now I need to also EQ that out?