- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 375
- Likes
- 765
-
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 Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
OP
- Thread Starter
- #282
Not anymore.
At best it would be 12 to 13 inches away.
Not anymore.
They do differ quite much in response and I believe the Kali is a bit bigger speaker compared to the JBL?
My thoughts as well. And now with that same rig Kali showed some less than stellar performance. While Amir and I are not "lieblings" I still cannot justify fireballs thrown at him for putting headless panther at Kali's measurement as at this point we have absolutely no reason to believe rig malfunctioned when measuring Kali.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #285
Yes, it is twice as big so it would need to be measured at farther distance. I will work on shortening the boom some to make better measurements. The issue with it is that as I pull back the boom, it widens the rig (at the other end). That is not an issue until it moves the Z-axis up and now I have this mic contraption poking out 11 foot up and it hits other obstacles in the garage.
And there was no other differences in settings/setup? I am just surprised that near field could yield 20 dB drop 100 Hz-10 kHz for the JBL but just a couple of dB for the Kali.
DDF
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 617
- Likes
- 1,364
I have two recommendations that I know will work but you may not like either.
Option 1; If it was me (thankfully its not and you're to be commended for your energy and effort), calibrate your set up against a golden standard. I would ask Klippel to send a small speaker that they've tested with NFS, and validated in a calibrated anechoic chamber (that's also crucial). Then test the same speaker and look for differences. All other outcomes should be provisional till then. Even anechoic chambers get calibrated before use.
Option 2: test the speaker using the more common method of near field+diffraction model spliced to windowed semi anechoic. Compare and look for any major discrepancies. Klippel has the advantage of far greater frequency resolution, speed and observation over numerous angle, but you only need to look at one axis and compare.
I satisfied myself that this method is accurate by comparing the diffraction simulator results against outcomes from Seas' anechoic chamber. I can provide these to you if you're interested.
Any decent home set up should also be repeatable: here's measurement repeatability with my test set up for one of my designs: two drivers measured indivudally and then xover simmed, overlaid with the system test taken months later
If you want to take those extra quasi anechoic and near field measurements (I know you're busy so probably not), you could send me the measurement data and I can put it together for you.
Attachments
I see where everyone is coming from.
I have no formal background in audio, and I only started measuring speakers a year ago because I wanted to be a more informed reviewer. I have the luxury of being able to readily test many different speakers at my job, so that meant I was able to learn through a lot of trial and error and referencing to existing measurements before I was confident enough to publish my results. Even then, there were still some things I got wrong, and I will probably get other things wrong in the future.
Of course, I'm just a guy with a plastic turntable and a microphone. I use a setup with a total cost of about $200, not a $70,000 automated state-of-the-art machine. I'm not expecting the same kind of accuracy no matter how hard I try. I see why people expect perfection from the klippel. We just don't know yet if we're getting that until we can compare to speakers extensive anechoic published results. The 305P was close to that, but even for that all we had was a smoothed, low res measurement of its predecessor.
I think @DDF makes a good point that if a speaker seems to measure and perform well below what is expected - as I think is the case with the kali below 500Hz or so - it's fair to reach out to the manufacturer and figure out what's going on before critiquing their design methodology. I don't think that jsut because Kali doesn't have the resources Harman once had doesn't mean they don't know how to design a good speaker. Otherwise we wouldn't have good speakers from any small manufacturer.
Ultimately, speaker designers spend much more time testing, measuring, and critiquing their own speakers than we do as reviewers and readers. I don't know whether that should necessarily stop you from publishing measured data when a speaker measures poorly right away, but it's probably fair to reach out after publishing and not come to an absolute conclusion about the process if the data is well off what's expected. I.e. In my job as a reporter, if something seems amiss with a product we've published an article about, we'll say something like "we're reaching out for more information/clarification and will update this post if we hear back." If they don't get back to us, that's their fault.
A speaker I measured a while ago seemed to have poor measured treble performance and sounded a little muddy. Upon further inspection, it seemed the tweeter had been damaged at some point in shipping - ever so slightly enough to not be noticeable if you're not paying attention. Luckily, I had the other speaker in the pair to compare it to, and the damage was evident in the measurements. I got a replacement from the manufacturer, and it both sounded and measured noticeably better. If I hadn't checked, the speaker would've gotten a bad review.
On the other hand, I'll say it again: The onus in on the manufacturer to provide their measured data and dispell errors in consumer measurements. Whether that's Kali, JBL, or whomever. They have the data, but they don't want to share or can't share for bureaucratic reasons. I don't know any major speaker manufacturer that doesn't measure its speakers, even if they're tuning by ear.
This doesn't just go for bad speakers, it happens with good speakers too. It's something we need to change about audio marketing and culture. Look at my spin of the devialet phantom reactor for instance.
I was pretty shocked. This is a tiny speaker with a pair of 4-inch woofers aimed at the luxury market. But other than an excess in bass (which it maintains to pretty high SPL levels), it measures better than many studio monitors, let alone hi-fi speakers. It would probably look even better in a proper measurement rig.
Devialet has no reason to hide this data. They could've built up so much more clout with audiophiles if they shared it. Instead, they're often just perceived as another luxury audio brand that doesn't care that much about sound quality (software issues aside). You can say the same about Sonos, whose few measurements I've seen have been pretty solid.
And yet, hide it, they do. Probably because that's what marketing told them to.
The good thing is Amir's work is helping to change culture around measurements and data provided. There are some growing pains, but I believe it will have the same effect with speakers.
Going forward, I think the solution is simple. No need to continue doubting the uber-expensive measurement rig with years of research behind it. Let's test more speakers with available data. Someone send this man a KH80 or Revel. Then we'll know if it's a speaker issue or a configuration issue. In the meantime, it looks like he'll be getting a replacement for the IN-8, and we'll eventually be getting data from Kali we can compare to. That's ultimately a win for us too.
I have no formal background in audio, and I only started measuring speakers a year ago because I wanted to be a more informed reviewer. I have the luxury of being able to readily test many different speakers at my job, so that meant I was able to learn through a lot of trial and error and referencing to existing measurements before I was confident enough to publish my results. Even then, there were still some things I got wrong, and I will probably get other things wrong in the future.
Of course, I'm just a guy with a plastic turntable and a microphone. I use a setup with a total cost of about $200, not a $70,000 automated state-of-the-art machine. I'm not expecting the same kind of accuracy no matter how hard I try. I see why people expect perfection from the klippel. We just don't know yet if we're getting that until we can compare to speakers extensive anechoic published results. The 305P was close to that, but even for that all we had was a smoothed, low res measurement of its predecessor.
I think @DDF makes a good point that if a speaker seems to measure and perform well below what is expected - as I think is the case with the kali below 500Hz or so - it's fair to reach out to the manufacturer and figure out what's going on before critiquing their design methodology. I don't think that jsut because Kali doesn't have the resources Harman once had doesn't mean they don't know how to design a good speaker. Otherwise we wouldn't have good speakers from any small manufacturer.
Ultimately, speaker designers spend much more time testing, measuring, and critiquing their own speakers than we do as reviewers and readers. I don't know whether that should necessarily stop you from publishing measured data when a speaker measures poorly right away, but it's probably fair to reach out after publishing and not come to an absolute conclusion about the process if the data is well off what's expected. I.e. In my job as a reporter, if something seems amiss with a product we've published an article about, we'll say something like "we're reaching out for more information/clarification and will update this post if we hear back." If they don't get back to us, that's their fault.
A speaker I measured a while ago seemed to have poor measured treble performance and sounded a little muddy. Upon further inspection, it seemed the tweeter had been damaged at some point in shipping - ever so slightly enough to not be noticeable if you're not paying attention. Luckily, I had the other speaker in the pair to compare it to, and the damage was evident in the measurements. I got a replacement from the manufacturer, and it both sounded and measured noticeably better. If I hadn't checked, the speaker would've gotten a bad review.
On the other hand, I'll say it again: The onus in on the manufacturer to provide their measured data and dispell errors in consumer measurements. Whether that's Kali, JBL, or whomever. They have the data, but they don't want to share or can't share for bureaucratic reasons. I don't know any major speaker manufacturer that doesn't measure its speakers, even if they're tuning by ear.
This doesn't just go for bad speakers, it happens with good speakers too. It's something we need to change about audio marketing and culture. Look at my spin of the devialet phantom reactor for instance.
I was pretty shocked. This is a tiny speaker with a pair of 4-inch woofers aimed at the luxury market. But other than an excess in bass (which it maintains to pretty high SPL levels), it measures better than many studio monitors, let alone hi-fi speakers. It would probably look even better in a proper measurement rig.
Devialet has no reason to hide this data. They could've built up so much more clout with audiophiles if they shared it. Instead, they're often just perceived as another luxury audio brand that doesn't care that much about sound quality (software issues aside). You can say the same about Sonos, whose few measurements I've seen have been pretty solid.
And yet, hide it, they do. Probably because that's what marketing told them to.
The good thing is Amir's work is helping to change culture around measurements and data provided. There are some growing pains, but I believe it will have the same effect with speakers.
Going forward, I think the solution is simple. No need to continue doubting the uber-expensive measurement rig with years of research behind it. Let's test more speakers with available data. Someone send this man a KH80 or Revel. Then we'll know if it's a speaker issue or a configuration issue. In the meantime, it looks like he'll be getting a replacement for the IN-8, and we'll eventually be getting data from Kali we can compare to. That's ultimately a win for us too.
Last edited:
DDF
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 617
- Likes
- 1,364
I thought it did but I don't believe it came with anechoic data to compare against and I'm not certain that Klippel provided their NFS results to compare against either.
DDF
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 617
- Likes
- 1,364
That's what the anechoic measured data would be for
That's just internal verification. Validation usually requires a gold standard.
DDF
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2018
- Messages
- 617
- Likes
- 1,364
Maybe I'm the only guy posting in the thread that actually did this professionally.
I'm far from convinced that the outcome is calibrated. I provided some recommendations for that.
I don't think so. I believe Klippel used anechoic data to compare the results when they were developing their rig, but once they have developed it and established that it gives the same results as in anechoic environment they would send the reference speaker together with their refence measurement so you can check your setup.
With that Kali speaker it's not only the measurments. I don't know how much speaker @amir listend to? But if he say's it sounds like a big clockradio, something has to be wrong. It's just subjective , but we not talk about satin in the highs and a sektdry bass. We talk about a big clockradio.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #299
I am not using the same settings for that single in-room measurement. Position, playback level, etc. are all different. This is why I am being cautious about posting other data. At this point, please only go by spinorama data, not the rest. Those are the areas that are still in development to standardize (by me).
If the fundamental curves for the distortion plots are representative for what you hear - then the would be a huge difference between the JBL and Kali.
Similar threads
- Poll
