I don't own any cardiod type speakers, but I do have the KH120 (since it was already mentioned) to test easily side-by-side the Sceptre S8.
The KH120 has wider directivity above 2 kHz owing to its waveguide, but also less controlled directivity in the mids due to its smaller driver size and baffle.
Both monitors are placed in a very compromised position near the immediate sidewall, and somewhat in the middle of a hallway -- absolutely necessary due to space constraints in the room I'm in. Both monitors are pointing exactly on-axis to the center MLP of my main listening couch.
View attachment 174267
While I am certain the KH120 will have a higher preference rating score,
we know that doesn't account for everything.
DISTORTION
View attachment 174268
KH120 ~vs~ S8
There's probably a 1dB (maybe less?) loss of efficiency in the low end of the Sceptre S8 due to my having added extra damping inside. The improvement in simple measured distortion sweeps is
negligible in reality, but it did help reduce some resonance between 400-500Hz (as evidenced by nearifield wavelet and burst decay spectograms compared in the past) so I kept the modification.
For distances of 2 meters or more, the Sceptres to me are more preferable due to the better low-end performance -- both use limiters and that flash alarmingly bright red when active. Needless to say, the Neumann KH120 starts limiting earlier and is a bit unsatisfactory when it comes to loud listening; bass subjectively comes across as "boomier" and a little "hyped" even before I added the extra damping to the S8.
You may have noticed the steeper slope in the high frequency of the KH120 above 12 kHz or so... destructive interference with the adjacent sidewall seems to be unavoidable here in this position.
View attachment 174269
*note last two (60 degree horizontal) traces
The Sceptre S8's narrowing directivity above 12 kHz helps to avoid combing/cancellation in the aforementioned region. I also think the narrowing directivity and dips (normally considered as "bad") makes this speaker sound less "harsh" to my ears -- notwithstanding other disadvantages like the high-mid excess and off-axis "bunching" between 6-11 kHz -- which can be reduced with EQ, according to taste.
With/out 5 cycle Windowing applied
View attachment 174270
*note the somewhat worse performance between 400-1,300 Hz of the KH120 with it's smaller, and less directive mid-woofer
View attachment 174271
effect of bunching between 6-11 kHz from the S8's small horn directivity waveguide is evident in this spectrogram view
If you really look closely above, we see that between 400-1,300 Hz, the S8 actually has better time domain performance -- at the final MLP.
ZOOMED-IN VIEW
View attachment 174273
more coherent or controlled mid-energy decay readily evident from the S8
That's all...
BTW, I just want to ask why the constant insinuation of some nefarious intent behind the data (before and after spectrograms) and explanations previously posted? I don't really understand why
@markus has to keep on repeatedly insisting on getting the mdat data files. I mean, it would be nice, but not totally necessary. The example graphs
@Kvalsvoll provided already seems pretty self-evident to me: where controlled directivity of some speakers can help improve performance in a real room. People's actual in-room situation may vary from the specific examples provided, of course -- as with this particular little side case note of mine.