KEF LS 60 Wireless / Ascend Audio Sierra-LX / Geithain RL 921k - where is the first 9.0 speaker???

[totti1965]

According to spinorama.org, the KEF LS 60 - measured without frequency response equalization and also without virtually putting a perfect subwoofer aside - is perhaps the best speaker ever added to the Spinorama.org database with 8.0 points. It's a pity that no one is sending Amir his KEF LS60 speaker for testing.
In fact, the problem with the 8.0 is, unfortunately, that spinorama.org rates the quality of the collected data as "medium", since it comes entirely from the manufacturer KEF himself.
What I would give for an independent measurement by Amir.....
Could the 8.0 be confirmed?
One full point more than the superior Neumann KH 150!!!!!
The Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LX has the same problem as the KEF LS60 Wireless:
The 8.9 spinorama.org points for the measurement with frequency response correction as well as addition of a perfect subwoofer are not yet independently confirmed by Amir! So what would I give?
Don't know -
What I do know: for the first manufacturer who, confirmed by Amir's measurements, reaches the 9.0 points in the Spinorama database no matter if with or without frequency response correction - gladly also with virtual addition of a perfect subwoofer - (previous record 8.8 (Kii Audio Kii Three and Genelec 8341A) !!!) I will donate USD 100,--. USD 50,-- for Amir and USD 50,-- for the manufacturer (who would become a legend anyway with such a feat.... )! Who participates?
P.S. I have a cheeky question: Wouldn't a Geithain RL 901k or RL 921k like they are in so many big recording studios in Europe (https://www.me-geithain.de/de/assets/media/products/studio/RL921K/Stereoplay 05-2020 RL921K.pdf) immediately pulverize every record of spinorama.org because of its extremely balanced frequency response and its cardioid characteristic?

 

[Shazb0t]

The Ascend Sierra LX was measured on a Klippel NFS by the company and there doesn't seem to be plausible reasoning to doubt the validity of their measurements.

 

[totti1965]

The Ascend Sierra LX was measured on a Klippel NFS by the company and there doesn't seem to be plausible reasoning to doubt the validity of their measurements.
Yes, but spinorama.org rated the validity of the KEF measurements (I think also Klippel) only „Medium“ -the Quality of
the Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LX measurements as „high“.
1. I don‘t know why they do so.
2. I would like to see just these two speakers doublechecked by Amir: It is because they are both candidates for the spinorama.org / Sean Olive „World Record“. The LS60 for listening without woofer (8.0 / 8.1). The Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LX for listening with a perfect woofer and correction (8.9). No 9.0 so far.

 

[NTK]

I think the issue is not with the credibility of Ascend Acoustics' data, but the available resolution and precision. I suspect the data for Ascend's products in Spinorama.org are digitized from the bitmaps in Ascend's website. The preference scores of the speakers tested by Amir or Erin are calculated using their NFS raw numerical data, which are 20 pts per octave and 1/20th octave smoothed (totaling ~200 pts from 20 to 20 kHz).

Preference scores calculated from digitized graphs are therefore not truly comparable to those from Amir's or Erin's tests, as they have lower resolution and higher smoothing. More smoothing and/or lower resolution will in all likelihood artificially raise the preference score, giving them an "unfair" advantage.

 

[totti1965]

I think the issue is not with the credibility of Ascend Acoustics' data, but the available resolution and precision. I suspect the data for Ascend's products in Spinorama.org are digitized from the bitmaps in Ascend's website. The preference scores of the speakers tested by Amir or Erin are calculated using their NFS raw numerical data, which are 20 pts per octave and 1/20th octave smoothed (totaling ~200 pts from 20 to 20 kHz).

Preference scores calculated from digitized graphs are therefore not truly comparable to those from Amir's or Erin's tests, as they have lower resolution and higher smoothing. More smoothing and/or lower resolution will in all likelihood artificially raise the preference score, giving them an "unfair" advantage.

Ah, yes! But i think they have got the raw data from Ascend Acoustics („high“) and the digitized ones from KEF („medium“). So curious about what Amir would say about the LS60 Wireless!

 

[AOR]

The Ascend Sierra LX was measured on a Klippel NFS by the company and there doesn't seem to be plausible reasoning to doubt the validity of their measurements.
Yes, but spinorama.org rated the validity of the KEF measurements (I think also Klippel) only „Medium“ -the Quality of
the Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LX measurements as „high“.
1. I don‘t know why they do so.
2. I would like to see just these two speakers doublechecked by Amir: It is because they are both candidates for the spinorama.org / Sean Olive „World Record“. The LS60 for listening without woofer (8.0 / 8.1). The Ascend Acoustics Sierra-LX for listening with a perfect woofer and correction (8.9). No 9.0 so far.

The Spinorama traces for the LS60 are generated from data acquired in an anechoic chamber, not a Klippel NFS.

 

[goldark]

Ah, yes! But i think they have got the raw data from Ascend Acoustics („high“) and the digitized ones from KEF („medium“). So curious about what Amir would say about the LS60 Wireless!

Correct. Dave from Ascend has confirmed he's sent the raw data to @pierre

 

[totti1965]

Correct. Dave from Ascend has confirmed he's sent the raw data to @pierre

Ah! The Ascent Acoustics Sierra-LX is getting more and more likeable to me!

 

[ExPerfectionist]

Ah! The Ascent Acoustics Sierra-LX is getting more and more likeable to me!

I just got my LXs last week. They're very likeable in person as well as on paper (screen).

 

[fineMen]

According to spinorama.org, the ...

One could also question the rating by the Olive score. The mentioned speakers are very different in a multiplicity of properties.
First of all, what do you personally need individually? Individual in the sense of I am not the statistical average. Neither is my record collection. After all, the olive score is related to an average.

Furthermore, the scale level is unknown (to me). For example, it is not clear whether the difference between 8.9 and 9.0 is the same as that between 7.1 and 7.2?

So it is not good at all to raise the score to a fetish. That would seem somewhat uninformed, not at all scientific because ultimately uncritical. That should be a thing of the past, please.

Especially with the Acend Sierra I find this statement significant: "Besides all ..., perhaps of most importance is the fact that we fully optimized ... to produce class leading NFS measurements."

Well then, you can get a lot of points even if nothing essential is really better. You just have to know how the score works.