Can't decide between Focal Shape 65 and Kali in-8 v2

[canardwc]

I want to complete my setup for critical listening. I have a pair of Focal Shape 65 and 1 Kali in-8 v2 that my friend gave me. Now I would like to complete my setup to make a 5.1 setup. I already have a subwoofer, so my question is, should I complete my setup buying more Focal Shapes 65 or just sell my Focal Shape and just use only Kali in-8 v2 instead. Money isn't an issue in this case because it will be about the same price for me. I'm just wondering which monitor has the most detail and less distortion. I like using my Focal Shapes but I had to calibrate them since they lack a bit of highs and their frequency response is less linear than the Kali. The Kali is definitely more flat, however, in a mono setup like I have now, it's hard to compare it with the Focals in terms of detailed sound and distortion. Many people say the Kali in8 second wave usually box out of their league, but is it enough to reach the Focal Shape 65 though? When using the Kali I feel it sounds more compressed but maybe it's just because I have only one.

Any help would be strongly appreciated !

Thank you very much

 

[dfuller]

You have both you can listen to, no? Both are generally in the category of "decent" - so give 'em a listen in mono, level matched with filtered pink noise.

 

[canardwc]

I do but I feel I'm more used to the Focals, it doesn't mean they are the best though, also I don't feel a mono pink noise test could be enough to judge the sound detail of a monitor, I did theses tests to level match, but the behavior of a monitor is quite different in a mono or stereo setup. That's why I would like to have some outside point of view from other people.

 

[YSC]

they are decent enough IMO and if you like the focal, just keep them

 

[mglobe]

Buy a UMIK-1 microphone from miniDSP, download REW, measure both sets of speakers, and compare the results of the measurements. Then compare what you seen in the frequency responses to what you think you hear. THEN make a decision.

 

[dfuller]

I do but I feel I'm more used to the Focals, it doesn't mean they are the best though, also I don't feel a mono pink noise test could be enough to judge the sound detail of a monitor, I did theses tests to level match, but the behavior of a monitor is quite different in a mono or stereo setup. That's why I would like to have some outside point of view from other people.

The filtered pink noise is just to match levels. Do your listening comparisons with music.

 

[gorb]

Kali IN-8 v2 gets my vote. 3 way coincident is preferable to 2 way imo.

 

[Eureka]

I have the same dilemma. For me depth and size are more important than response. I think correct phase alignment in mix would be better with shape. But there are so many good posts about Kali. If you have any ideas, I would be very happy if you could let me know. This is my first post. Take care.

 

[YSC]

I have the same dilemma. For me depth and size are more important than response. I think correct phase alignment in mix would be better with shape. But there are so many good posts about Kali. If you have any ideas, I would be very happy if you could let me know. This is my first post. Take care.

Somehow I have a feel for working purpose, all of these are above good enough monitors, just go with your gut feeling of the model you like better and forget it, afterall it's just work/entertainment, discussing C/P or accuracy is one thing, but crossing the line of good enough for the usecase, get the one with the brand/look you like better, your brain will bring you more satisfaction

 

[AnalogSteph]

For me depth and size are more important than response.

As in, speaker dimensions? Both are roughly the same width and height (Kali about 4 mm more each) but the Focal is about an inch deeper. The Focal uses a passive radiator so should not have any issues with port resonances / port noise, and being the wider-radiating speaker should offer more flexibility for moving around in nearfield. What is your listening distance going to be? Obviously, with the Focal being all-analog, its sound adjustments are more basic, and input sensitivity is unspecified and fixed although there is a difference of presumably 12 dB between RCA and XLR.

EDIT: Oops, used LP6v2 dimensions instead of IN-8v2 (which is substantially bigger).

 

[Eureka]

As in, speaker dimensions? Both are roughly the same width and height (Kali about 4 mm more each) but the Focal is about an inch deeper. The Focal uses a passive radiator so should not have any issues with port resonances / port noise, and being the wider-radiating speaker should offer more flexibility for moving around in nearfield. What is your listening distance going to be? Obviously, with the Focal being all-analog, its sound adjustments are more basic, and input sensitivity is unspecified and fixed although there is a difference of presumably 12 dB between RCA and XLR.

First of all, I apologize for my bad English. What I mean by depth and dimension is; 3D imaging and correct phase relationship.
I am sure I do not like a single big driver. This can be exciting for some customers.
I will definitely be close to my system. I do not have enough opportunities for distant listening yet. Right now, my back wall distance in my house is 2.5 meters for the speakers. This is a huge loss of space; but what is important is how I hear. Being able to get very close to the wall would be a great luxury. I have always been in 4/3 of my mixing room.
And I sold my last speakers, Adam A5s. I only use headphones.
I did a lot of research about Kali but I did not read anyone complaining about port noise. We know Focal is an experienced company. And I will probably go with Shape 65. I just do not want to miss anything because Kali is cheaper and has 3-way.
Since I see that there are people who are in the same dilemma, I am curious about their preferences and why. I wish I had the chance to listen in my room.

 

[AnalogSteph]

I will definitely be close to my system.

Which would amount to what kind of distance in meters, ear to speaker?

What I mean by depth and dimension is; 3D imaging and correct phase relationship.

That would amount to good, even dispersion (with a less well-treated room favoring a more narrow pattern) and flat frequency response.

I suppose you picked these two because they extend to 40 Hz or below with authority?
Another I might look at would be the ADAM A7V. And if you end up sitting reasonably close (1-1.5 m max), Neumann KH120 II. Or the trusty Genelec 8030C (or preferably its less sensitive "home" cousin, the G3).

 

[Eureka]

Which would amount to what kind of distance in meters, ear to speaker?


That would amount to good, even dispersion (with a less well-treated room favoring a more narrow pattern) and flat frequency response.

I suppose you picked these two because they extend to 40 Hz or below with authority?
Another I might look at would be the ADAM A7V. And if you end up sitting reasonably close (1-1.5 m max), Neumann KH120 II. Or the trusty Genelec 8030C (or preferably its less sensitive "home" cousin, the G3).

I think Genelec 8040s will be the most reliable choice for me. But they are a bit out of my price range. Adam A7v is the same. I might get a Genelec G3. It was on my list but Kali confuses me because of the design. Maybe Dynaudio BM5 Mkiii. I can find 8030 a or b. I have to look for used products. I am trying to push myself and run to 8040b. Other than that I think I will continue with Kali İn8 v2 or Shape 65. Do you think Genelec G3 can support my commercial work, there is really no user experience in this regard ?

 

[AnalogSteph]

Do you think Genelec G3 can support my commercial work, there is really no user experience in this regard ?

It is much the same as the 8030C, except for lower input sensitivity (96 dB or 86 dB vs. 106 to 94 dB in 2 dB steps, 1 m anechoic, 0 dBu). This is potentially beneficial in terms of hiss. If you know for sure that your interface has a noise floor safely below -94 dBu and your studio is heavily treated anyway, the (cheaper) regular 8030C should be fine though.

Among 8030C / G Three, IN-8 v2 and Shape 65,

• the Genelecs would have the smoothest on-axis response and most even dispersion, as well as lowest power consumption, although their limiter may be slightly restrictive at high levels; they're a good choice at 1-1.3 m
• the Kalis would play the loudest and second deepest, though they need a bit of distance / off-axis listening to fully smooth out (note, there's also the IN-5 targeted at nearfield use)
• the Focals would play the deepest and fairly loud although in-room response at larger distances would probably be a bit bright

The 8040Bs would be kind of a mix of the Focals and 8030Cs, even if still not as smooth as the latter (8030s with a sub - not necessarily from Genelec - may be preferable). Note that they are still on AB amps, so not quite as power-efficient as the 8030C even if 10 W a piece idle still isn't much.

 

[Eureka]

It is much the same as the 8030C, except for lower input sensitivity (96 dB or 86 dB vs. 106 to 94 dB in 2 dB steps, 1 m anechoic, 0 dBu). This is potentially beneficial in terms of hiss. If you know for sure that your interface has a noise floor safely below -94 dBu and your studio is heavily treated anyway, the (cheaper) regular 8030C should be fine though.

Among 8030C / G Three, IN-8 v2 and Shape 65,

• the Genelecs would have the smoothest on-axis response and most even dispersion, as well as lowest power consumption, although their limiter may be slightly restrictive at high levels; they're a good choice at 1-1.3 m
• the Kalis would play the loudest and second deepest, though they need a bit of distance / off-axis listening to fully smooth out (note, there's also the IN-5 targeted at nearfield use)
• the Focals would play the deepest and fairly loud although in-room response at larger distances would probably be a bit bright

The 8040Bs would be kind of a mix of the Focals and 8030Cs, even if still not as smooth as the latter (8030s with a sub - not necessarily from Genelec - may be preferable). Note that they are still on AB amps, so not quite as power-efficient as the 8030C even if 10 W a piece idle still isn't much.

This was very informative for me. I hope to have completed my shopping by the time next month starts. I have limited my order to Genelec 8040b, Kali İn8 v2, Genelec 8030b (sub to be added later). I will inform you when I have completed my shopping. Thank you.

 

[Eureka]

I received these beautiful speakers from a good person. Genelec 8050a. I couldn't be happier.

 

[Ziltoe]

Congratulations