Thanks to Amir and all for a very interesting review and discussion.
I work in audio production and can respond to the slightly off-topic discussion about monitoring standards in recording studios.
Among the hardest challenges in music production is creating mixes that “translate” well across different systems. There is a long road between making a mix sound good and the system you are mixing on and making it sound good on every system it might be played on.
Because of this, the “holy grail” for studio monitors are speakers that you can trust in many different environments to give you mixes that “translate well”.
So far this is more of an aspiration than a practical possibility.
What really enables a mix that translates well is the mixers skill in understanding how the sounds they are crafting will interact with the wider “real world” playback systems it will be heard on.
So the ideal studio monitor (and environment) is one that lets the mixer perceive as clearly as possible what is going on in the mix.
This means “neutral” speakers are preferred, not excessively “colored”. My perception is that some cheaper monitors are engineered with kind of a “hyped“ sound, mostly in the high frequency response. This is bad.
There is a paradox here.
Suppose you had a speaker that “flattered” every mix played through it. It literally would cover up the defects in mix. (You could imagine a dsp based speaker with a built in RTA that could correct problems with the EQ or dynamics of the mix to target a preferred response shape.)
This would be an amazing speaker for a listener!
But it would be the worst studio monitor of all time.
Studio monitors that have a ”pleasing sound” will actually give you the inverse in your mix. A monitor that is too bright results in a dark mix. A dip in the frequency response like we are seeing with this Kali will tend to give mixes that are too heavy in that range.
Because of these challenge, most mixers learn to overcome or compensate for deficiencies in their monitors through a process of trial and error. To more or a less a degree. The complaints here about the “poor” quality of current music production are likely not because of funky monitors but are the intended results based on popular trends.
Because of the lack of standards, as a listener, a well behaved speaker with neutral frequency response and smooth off axis response is as good a bet as any.
But, when it comes to home audio, you really can “trust your ears.” If your system “sounds good to you“ then it is good, and you have no need to justify, let reviews like this influence your perception, or upgrade.
Where reviews like this are helpful is in trying to “upgrade” your system. Speakers are the biggest “rabbit hole” in audio.
The real reason this notion of not “trusting you ears” got started was the realization that people perceived differences in audio gear that blind testing showed were not present. This leads to people wasting money.
It turns out that relatively “flat” speakers are preferred on average based on listening tests. This is a surprise to me, and I would guess to many folks in the consumer audio industry.