Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[Krunok]

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.

It's not that simple. It was actually his wife who didn't like how it sounded so he, of course, had to agree..

 

[Thomas_A]

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).

Ok!

 

[DDF]

I suggest we try to keep it factual!

That comment was a cheap drive by and not appreciated. My comment was factual and based on the available data.

If I missed it, I'm all ears, but I haven't seen the calibration data and I know amirm has expressed need for heightened confidence in the results.

Getting back to the original point, it could also be something broke in shipping, so I stand by my comment to contact the mfg before slamming the product and verify that the measurement represents the product sold.

Wow..

Krunok, LOL, sorry about that.

 

[Krunok]

Krunok, LOL, sorry about that.

 

[Krunok]

If I missed it, I'm all ears, but I haven't seen the calibration data and I know amirm has expressed need for heightened confidence in the results.

Wasn't that only regarding absolute SPL data? With Kali it is relative SPL that is problematic..

 

[DDF]

Wasn't that only regarding absolute SPL data? With Kali it is relative SPL that is problematic..

I'm breaking my concerns into 2 parts:
1. Hmm, I come back to it: where can we see the data validating the test results are as expected and accurately representing anechoic results? Did I miss it? If so, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong on that point.
2. Vendors should have a right to comment before posting if results look very amiss and there is still some lingering doubt in the test set up (as expressed by Amir himself). A number of follow on posts are trying to smooth this point over in fear of losing out on Amir's gracious testing, and its not commendable.

 

[Deleted member 65]

That comment was a cheap drive by and not appreciated. My comment was factual and based on the available data. ...

Sure, as we're expressing ourselves with words here care should be taken with what we write. I'm not able to see and interpret how you or anyone else react upon what's been written.

Being in a dialogue with someone over what should be facts, using statements like "I don't believe" or "I'm not certain" without providing facts does not contribute to or drives the dialogue forward in a constructive way.

Thx for your response!

 

[Krunok]

I'm breaking my concerns into 2 parts:
1. Hmm, I come back to it: where can we see the data validating the test results are as expected and accurately representing anechoic results? Did I miss it? If so, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong on that point.

I don't think he published them, he just said that measurement of refence speaker which came with the rig went ok - which I fully believe as I cannot imagine he would start publishing measurements if it didn't.

2. Vendors should have a right to comment before posting if results look very amiss. A number of follow on posts are trying to smooth this point over in fear of losing out on Amir's gracious testing, and its not commendable.

That depends on the reviewer..
If you are sure you're doing measurements the right way you can as well publish results and let the vendor provide explanation later. You can as well choose to clear things with vendor before pubishing the results. I see it as a personal reviewers choice.

 

[DDF]

Sure, as we're expressing ourselves with words here care should be taken with what we write. I'm not able to see and interpret how you or anyone else react upon what's been written.

Being in a dialogue with someone over what should be facts, using statements like "I don't believe" or "I'm not certain" without providing facts does not contribute to or drives the dialogue forward in a constructive way.

Thx for your response!

I left room for possibility that the calibration data may be available even if
- it wasn't published
- Amir expressed reservation with the accuracy, not really knowing yet

There was nothing non factual about my comments. Your comment wrapped up all my posts as non factual based on that.

I appreciate your response though, no harm, no fowl.

 

[tomtoo]

.
2. Vendors should have a right to comment before .....

Why? Everybody can read. Kali does a great job. We will see, where the problem is. @
amirm's measurements AND ears. Or just a problem with that specific speaker?

 

[LightninBoy]

A goal of amirm's is to influence the industry. With influence comes responsibility. It’s disappointing to see:

• headless panther review justified by a sighted listening test and “my wife didn't like it”.

I guess it never occurred to me to take any"pink panther rating" all that seriously. Its just a fun way to visualize amirm's impressions. Everyone is free to read the data and come to their own "pink panther" conclusion.

 

[edechamps]

Vendors should have a right to comment before posting if results look very amiss and there is still some lingering doubt in the test set up (as expressed by Amir himself).

Interestingly, Rtings has a formal process and policy exactly for that kind of scenario, where any manufacturer can play an "out of spec" card on their reviews (but only once) and have Rtings redo the measurements on another unit.

 

[DDF]

I don't think he published them, he just said that measurement of refence speaker which came with the rig went ok - which I fully believe as I cannot imagine he would start publishing measurements if it didn't.

I'm going off his own expressed reservations as well

That depends on the reviewer..
If you are sure you're doing measurements the right way you can as well publish results and let the vendor provide explanation later. You can as well choose to clear things with vendor before pubishing the results. I see it as a personal reviewers choice.

Why? Everybody can read. Kali does a great job. We will see, where the problem is. @
amirm's measurements AND ears. Or just a problem with that specific speaker?

Wow, strongly disagree. I think its an ethical responsibility. Readers will come here and read just the first page, then take it out of context if it turns out the unit was damaged in shipping, or there are still lingering issues with the test set up. It's important for the credibility of the site and to not unfairly tar suppliers reputations by not being cavalier about this

 

[mhardy6647]

Wow, strongly disagree. I think its an ethical responsibility. Readers will come here and read just the first page, then take it out of context if it turns out the unit was damaged in shipping, or there are still lingering issues with the test set up.

... or just look at the panther "icon" I did that for quite a while here myself. Maybe I shouldn't advertise that

I figure the analytical methodology is what it is; as long as it is consistent, and internally consistent, it can and should yield useful information.
(I'll readily admit to this being my opinion, i.e., I don't intend to state it as immutable fact).

 

[stunta]

Question: since someone had promised me the Kali LP-6, I asked Nate to send me LP-8 in addition. Well, naturally the person that promised the LP-6 took his offer off the table since he thought Kalip was sending me LP-6. So should we be testing LP-8 or LP-6? If LP-8 is an IN-8 without midrange, I like to measure that. But if interest is higher for LP-6, I can ask Nate if he can send that instead.

Would be preferable if they pay you to buy the speakers from a retailer so we eliminate golden samples.

 

[DDF]

Interestingly, Rtings has a formal process and policy exactly for that kind of scenario, where any manufacturer can play an "out of spec" card on their reviews (but only once) and have Rtings redo the measurements on another unit.

What I don't like about this is that a supplier could send cherry picked samples. Of course some will, its naive to think otherwise.

 

[Sancus]

Wow, strongly disagree. I think its an ethical responsibility. Readers will come here and read just the first page, then take it out of context if it turns out the unit was damaged in shipping, or there are still lingering issues with the test set up.

So, are you saying that the vast majority of audio media reviews are unethical, or that the ethical responsibility only shows up when you're posting a negative review?

In my view, reviewers have a much greater ethical responsibility when they are recommending something than when they are not, but it seems like the opposite view is taken in the systematically broken audio industry.

 

[Krunok]

I'm going off his own expressed reservations as well

I understood everything is set up as it should be except absolute SPL level - let's wait for Amir to provide more info.

Wow, strongly disagree. I think its an ethical responsibility. Readers will come here and read just the first page, then take it out of context if it turns out the unit was damaged in shipping, or there are still lingering issues with the test set up.

I don't agree. I see checking the loudspeaker for shipping damage and correctly setting the rig as Amir's responsibility, so IMHO as long as he is certain in that he can choose to publish the results without manufacturer consent. In case manufacturer declares non-matching results and asks for re-measurement with another unit - well, that is what will hapen now, right?

 

[DDF]

So, are you saying that the vast majority of audio media reviews are unethical, or that the ethical responsibility only shows up when you're posting a negative review?

This is illogical. How could you possibly get that from my statement, which is make sure the product isn't damaged and that your test set up is AOK before publishing a negative review?

 

[Krunok]

What I don't like about this is that a supplier could send cherry picked samples. Of course some will, its naive to think otherwise.

Sure. But if the unit that Kali will send would measure better than first unit it will be pretty clear that QA sucks.