Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[QMuse]

PS: If you follow Toole's logic, it makes sense to optimize the direct sound (LW) first because it is the first sound to arrive at our ears, and it is responsible for the timbre. In his words, if it is wrong, the rest doesn't matter anymore. In this case we can make both (direct & reflected sounds) look good. All the better.

We cannot distinguish early reflections from direct sound.

 

[thewas]

In the end we want both smooth direct sound and smooth reflected sound / sound power and since the loudspeaker with the absolutely perfect smooth directivity hasn't been engineered that, this is a compromise so its better to consider both, when listening in the nearfield putting higher weight to the direct sound and when listening further away putting higher weight to the sound power.

 

[TimVG]

Estimated corrected in-room response:

 

[TimVG]

We cannot distinguish early reflections from direct sound.

Not exactly what Toole says. In short: "Chapter 6 shows that in normal rooms the first lateral reflections in rectangular rooms of normal listening and control room dimensions are above the threshold of audibility. They can be heard, but are below the threshold at which the precedence effect breaks down, so there is still a single localized image"

Hence the notion that the direct sound is the most important.

 

[QMuse]

Not exactly what Toole says. In short: "Chapter 6 shows that in normal rooms the first lateral reflections in rectangular rooms of normal listening and control room dimensions are above the threshold of audibility. They can be heard, but are below the threshold at which the precedence effect breaks down, so there is still a single localized image"

Hence the notion that the direct sound is the most important.

I don't think so. IMO it is the shape of the predicted in-room response curve that is the most important. All 3 curves are built-in into that one and it is the one that tells us how the speaker will sound in real room.

 

[TimVG]

I don't think so. IMO it is the shape of the predicted in-room response curve that is the most important. All 3 curves are built-in into that one and it is the one that tells us how the speaker will sound in real room.

This is not true according to Floyd Toole and I guess that is where our opinions differ.

 

[QMuse]

This is not true according to Floyd Toole and I guess that is where our opinions differ.

View attachment 52948

That is all true, of course, but it still doesn't contradict the fact that early reflections and sound power influence predicted in-room response much more than listening window response hence their weighting is 40% vs 12% of listening window weighting.

 

[QMuse]

Estimated corrected in-room response:

Here is how I would do it (listening window + predicted in-room response, uppers are original, lower are corrected):

 

[TimVG]

That is all true, of course, but it still doesn't contradict the fact that early reflections and sound power influence predicted in-room response much more than listening window response hence their weighting is 40% vs 12% of listening window weighting.

It predicts the visual outcome of the steady state response but is primarily the direct sound that is import to us as listeners. Both can go hand in hand these days.

 

[TimVG]

Here is how I would do it (listening window + predicted in-room response, uppers are original, lower are corrected):

View attachment 52949

Very nice result. Can you upload the filterset?

 

[QMuse]

Very nice result. Can you upload the filterset?

Sure. I made 1 minor change to make it better.

 

[Absolute]

In my mind it makes sense to correct the direct sound or listening window, but not the estimated room-response. This is because errors in the directivity might or might not matter much depending on room/acoustics, but direct sound always matters greatly.

To correct the predicted in-room response is to assume that we hear reflections and direct sound mixed without ability to separate those. There's no evidence to support that line of reasoning as far as I'm aware.

 

[QMuse]

To correct the predicted in-room response is to assume that we hear reflections and direct sound mixed without ability to separate those.

As far as I know that is true for early reflections.

Remeber that you will be listening to the speaker in a room, not in an anechoic chamber and that it's response will be very similar to the predicted in-room response curve, not to the listening window curve.

 

[QMuse]

Very nice result. Can you upload the filterset?

You probably meant this, not the actual filter file, right?

As you can see I tried to keep it as gentle as possible.

 

[mitchco]

While the CTA-2034-A spins are great for loudspeaker designers and geeks (like me), for the consumer to judge how a speaker will sound in the room it is all about the estimated or predicted in-room response. From the standard:

"Unlike previously published standards, this standard describes how to measure and report the directivity of a loudspeaker, whether it stands by itself or is mounted in or on a wall or ceiling. It also describes how to use this directivity data to estimate the in-room frequency response that more recent research has shown correlates well to subjective listening preferences of consumers."

That "subjective listening preferences of consumers" is directly related to Sean Olive's and earlier, Floyd Toole's scientific research that if you dig through them, there is a clear and repeatable preference of what listeners like for an in-room frequency response.

From CTA-2034-A, comparing the estimated in-room response to an actual measured in-room response, it is quite accurate:

When it to comes to room correction, and for those that have not read it, JJ's presentation on Acoustic and Psychoacoustic Issues in Room Correction is a good read. The first 31 slides in his Power Point presentation does a great job of explain why we hear what we hear in small room acoustics and how it relates to room correction.

Sorry for the OT @QMuse Kali eq results look very good!

 

[TimVG]

@mitchco

With all respect, I've seen you taking the room curve out of context on several occasions. Please review this thread:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ut-room-curve-targets-room-eq-and-more.10950/

A smooth room curve does not necessarily equal a better listening experience. Directivity and other local acoustic phenomena must be factored in. The only data we can rely upon is the anechoic data to properly quantify potential sound quality.

 

[stevenswall]

Don't most reflections get tamed a ton when you use something nearfield? Seems like that's what most are using them for, yet I'm reading about how the direct sound doesn't matter so much... That makes sense if you're 10 feet away maybe like Kali says, but in a lot of people's minds and use cases, these seem to be nearfield monitors, regardless of Kali specifying 10 feet back and designing them to combine with reflections.

 

[QMuse]

While the CTA-2034-A spins are great for loudspeaker designers and geeks (like me), for the consumer to judge how a speaker will sound in the room it is all about the estimated or predicted in-room response. From the standard:

"Unlike previously published standards, this standard describes how to measure and report the directivity of a loudspeaker, whether it stands by itself or is mounted in or on a wall or ceiling. It also describes how to use this directivity data to estimate the in-room frequency response that more recent research has shown correlates well to subjective listening preferences of consumers."

That "subjective listening preferences of consumers" is directly related to Sean Olive's and earlier, Floyd Toole's scientific research that if you dig through them, there is a clear and repeatable preference of what listeners like for an in-room frequency response.

From CTA-2034-A, comparing the estimated in-room response to an actual measured in-room response, it is quite accurate:

View attachment 52961

When it to comes to room correction, and for those that have not read it, JJ's presentation on Acoustic and Psychoacoustic Issues in Room Correction is a good read. The first 31 slides in his Power Point presentation does a great job of explain why we hear what we hear in small room acoustics and how it relates to room correction.

Sorry for the OT @QMuse Kali eq results look very good!

Oh, I don't consider your post to be OT at all, especially as you confirmed the significance of predicted In-Room response.

 

[QMuse]

@mitchco

Directivity and other local acoustic phenomena must be factored in. The only data we can rely upon is the anechoic data to properly quantify potential sound quality.

Predicted In-Room response IS (pseudo) anechoic data and both directivity indexes ARE factored in it with heavy weighting use of Early Reflections and Sound Power.

I find nothing in the thread you linked that contradicts with what @mitchco said. @thewas_ what do you think?

And carefully with qualifying @mitchco 's knowledge and experience as it seems to me you have much to learn before discussing things with him on an equal basis.

 

[Jmudrick]

Don't most reflections get tamed a ton when you use something nearfield? Seems like that's what most are using them for, yet I'm reading about how the direct sound doesn't matter so much... That makes sense if you're 10 feet away maybe like Kali says, but in a lot of people's minds and use cases, these seem to be nearfield monitors, regardless of Kali specifying 10 feet back and designing them to combine with reflections.

They're awfully big for very nearfield use.