+1 for the KEFs**. They are very limited in bass whilst quite o/k-ish if used at low background volumes, a bit shouty simply due to a decidedly forward frequency response.
One may also assume that customers will regularly exploit the output capabilities of their set-up fully, accepting a certain amount of distortion, which is determined by the set-up. The signature, as to find a word, of the usually very limited stereo (5.1) set-up is something to be determined.
I always wondered for which reasons the standard 'bad' speakers, Yamaha, Aurasound, are chosen as that standard. It cannot be bass extension alone, because that could be set using an equalizer for the main monitors. Distortion, maybe, but a software simulation should be available. Intermodulation is a hot candidate but the amount of IM varies wildly with use case, size, quality, extension etc pp.
Briefly, how come to have a 'standard bad' and what is it actually? Motivation: if the double check against 'bad' is part of studio technologies and methods, it should be well described, technically. I think it is consensus that there is only one 'perfect' but there are infinitely many 'bads'.
** equalize the LSX in bass for full detrimental effect
, see also:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-lsx-review-wireless-speaker.24802/