• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Kali LP-UNF vs. KEF LSX II LT per GPT-4o AI model

honn

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
91
Likes
58
I supplied the Spinorama comparison graph below to GPT-4o model to analyze and determine the superior speaker based on the data. Perhaps others here who are more knowledgeable in reading all the Spinorama data can comment whether the GPT model accurately analyze the graphs. Thanks!
Here's what it comes up with, do you agree?:p

To analyze this graph and determine the superior speaker, here are some key points to consider based on the provided data:

1. On-Axis Response:
The Kali LP-UNF shows a more consistent on-axis response, which is closer to flat across the frequency range. This is generally preferred for accurate sound reproduction.
2. Listening Window:
The listening window of the Kali LP-UNF appears smoother and more consistent than the KEF LSX II LT, which suggests better performance for listeners seated in different positions.
3. Early Reflections:
The early reflections curve of the Kali LP-UNF is better controlled, which indicates better handling of reflections in the room and contributes to improved clarity and imaging.
4. Sound Power:
The Kali LP-UNF’s sound power curve shows less deviation and better consistency compared to the KEF LSX II LT, suggesting superior off-axis performance and room interaction.
5. Directivity Index (DI):
The DI curves for the Kali LP-UNF are more stable, implying better control over sound directivity. This contributes to a more predictable performance in different listening environments.
6. Recommended Zones:
The Kali LP-UNF operates more closely within the “recommended zones” for sound power and DI, indicating it is tuned closer to ideal targets for room interaction and directivity.
Conclusion:
Based on the graph, the Kali LP-UNF appears to be the superior speaker in terms of consistency, room interaction, and overall tuning. It has a flatter response, better directivity control, and smoother listening windows, which are critical for accurate and enjoyable sound reproduction. The KEF LSX II LT may still have its merits, such as form factor and design considerations, but purely on the technical acoustic performance shown, the Kali LP-UNF is the better choice.

newplot.png
 
I have the LSX II in my family room and the LP-UNF in my office. Both are really good. Kef sounds clearer while Kali is more dynamic. Kali does have wider soundstage. Bang for buck tough to beat Kali for less than 1/4 the price. Kef definitely has more features and is better looking in my opinion. No bad choice here.
 
I have the LSX II in my family room and the LP-UNF in my office. Both are really good. Kef sounds clearer while Kali is more dynamic. Kali does have wider soundstage. Bang for buck tough to beat Kali for less than 1/4 the price. Kef definitely has more features and is better looking in my opinion. No bad choice here.
There's no doubt that the LSX II/LT is the winner in terms of aesthetics for sure. KEF's coaxial design tends to produce narrower soundstage indeed. But just on sonic performance, disregarding features, price, looks, which would you say win?
 
GPT-4o was just plain wrong. The KEF LSX has better scores on narrow band deviation (NBD, a measure of the flatness of the frequency response curves) for both on-axis (ON) and listening window (LW) than the Kali LP-UNF. The same also for the other scores except LFQ and LFX (low frequency quality and low frequency extension). So, items 1 to 4 were wrong. There was no comparison curves/data for item 6, thus obviously wrong again.

lsx_scores.png


lp_unf_scores.png
 
GPT-4o was just plain wrong. The KEF LSX has better scores on narrow band deviation (NBD, a measure of the flatness of the frequency response curves) for both on-axis (ON) and listening window (LW) than the Kali LP-UNF. The same also for the other scores except LFQ and LFX (low frequency quality and low frequency extension). So, items 1 to 4 were wrong. There was no comparison curves/data for item 6, thus obviously wrong again.

View attachment 419503

View attachment 419504
Thanks for this! I wonder if the analysis will be better if GPT-4o is supplied with the written data instead of the graphs...
 
There's no doubt that the LSX II/LT is the winner in terms of aesthetics for sure. KEF's coaxial design tends to produce narrower soundstage indeed. But just on sonic performance, disregarding features, price, looks, which would you say win?
Tough question and it would depend what I am listening to. Something more upbeat that I want to rock out, the Kali. Something more relaxing with good vocals the Kef. I would have to compare side by side without a sub. I have the Kali WS-6.2 with the Kef currently and no sub on the Kali. Probably the Kef overall.
 
Tough question and it would depend what I am listening to. Something more upbeat that I want to rock out, the Kali. Something more relaxing with good vocals the Kef. I would have to compare side by side without a sub. I have the Kali WS-6.2 with the Kef currently and no sub on the Kali. Probably the Kef overall.
Great choice on the sub! I've been eyeing the very same Kali sub.
 
GPT-4o was just plain wrong. The KEF LSX has better scores on narrow band deviation (NBD, a measure of the flatness of the frequency response curves) for both on-axis (ON) and listening window (LW) than the Kali LP-UNF. The same also for the other scores except LFQ and LFX (low frequency quality and low frequency extension). So, items 1 to 4 were wrong. There was no comparison curves/data for item 6, thus obviously wrong again.

View attachment 419503

View attachment 419504
On a second look, I think you may have looked at the wrong data, the one you posted was KEF LSX, not the LSX II LT that is the latest incarnation and what was on the graphs.
 
On a second look, I think you may have looked at the wrong data, the one you posted was KEF LSX, not the LSX II LT that is the latest incarnation and what was on the graphs.
You are right! I typed KEF LSX in the spinorama.org search box and only the LSX showed up. Not aware that not until I keep typing 'II', the LSX II LT would not come up.

Anyhow, very interesting that the LSX and LSX II LT scores are so different (with the LSX II LT being poorer in NBD ON, NBD LW, NBD SP, NBD PIR, but better at SM SP and SM PIR, and also better at LFQ and LFX) when the graphs are so close. May be I'll dig into it a little closer tomorrow.

kef_lsx_ii_lt_vs_lsx.png

lsx_scores.png

lsxII_lt_scores.png
 
Back
Top Bottom