Coaxial Nearfield: Genelec vs Kef vs Kali

[abcde]

Is Genelec really worth the money over Kali?

Looking for nearfield coaxial monitors to upgrade from Adam T5V, listening distance 1.0-1.2 meter, desktop use directly flanking a 32" monitor, typical SPL <80dB. I specifically want coaxial to optimize response as I move slightly around in my very nearfield listening/seating position.

Rest of system (that I already have) is miniDSP SHD, Dirac, and 2x Rythmik L12 hidden under the desk. I could make modifications to those components if there was a compelling need to, i.e. miniDSP Flex Eight. I entertained the idea of dual Rythmik FM8s on the desk for a while, but I want the setup to be sleek, not cramped.

I'd prefer to be able to crossover as low as possible, around 60-70 hz (48dB/octave), since the subs are under the desk and completely occluded from my ears... which points me to monitors that can competently reproduce 50-60 hz.

I have found available to me:

• $800..... Kali IN-8 V2
• $1600... Kef LS50 Meta (+ amplification)
• $2200... Kef R3 Meta (+ amplification)
• $4000... Genelec 8331A
• $6200... Genelec 8341A

Genelec -- I know they're likely the best and that they hold their value. But after playing around with the upper echelon of headphones, I'm well aware of diminishing returns with additional $$$ spent. I worry that the 8331A won't play quite as low as I'd prefer.

Kef -- They occupy a middle ground in pricing. I feel like I'd rather get a good value with Kali, or go cost no object with Genelec. I also really prefer the idea of internally tri-amped and DSP corrected drivers/crossovers.

Kali -- IN8 v2 is a little ugly, I'm getting that 90's wavy cup aesthetic. The price is amazing. And it sort of bothers me that the woofer isn't vertically symmetric like with Genelec. How much performance do they really give up against Genelec coaxial for a super nearfield and low SPL application? I'm 100% percent about measurements and hard data, and after reading the available reviews on this site, it's tough for me to try to justify the nearly eight-fold increase in price. Is there anything I'm missing regarding selection for my application?

 

[Pearljam5000]

Is Genelec really worth the money over Kali?

Looking for nearfield coaxial monitors to upgrade from Adam T5V, listening distance 1.0-1.2 meter, desktop use directly flanking a 32" monitor, typical SPL <80dB. I specifically want coaxial to optimize response as I move slightly around in my very nearfield listening/seating position.

Rest of system (that I already have) is miniDSP SHD, Dirac, and 2x Rythmik L12 hidden under the desk. I could make modifications to those components if there was a compelling need to, i.e. miniDSP Flex Eight. I entertained the idea of dual Rythmik FM8s on the desk for a while, but I want the setup to be sleek, not cramped.

I'd prefer to be able to crossover as low as possible, around 60-70 hz (48dB/octave), since the subs are under the desk and completely occluded from my ears... which points me to monitors that can competently reproduce 50-60 hz.

I have found available to me:

• $800..... Kali IN-8 V2
• $1600... Kef LS50 Meta (+ amplification)
• $2200... Kef R3 Meta (+ amplification)
• $4000... Genelec 8331A
• $6200... Genelec 8341A

Genelec -- I know they're likely the best and that they hold their value. But after playing around with the upper echelon of headphones, I'm well aware of diminishing returns with additional $$$ spent. I worry that the 8331A won't play quite as low as I'd prefer.

Kef -- They occupy a middle ground in pricing. I feel like I'd rather get a good value with Kali, or go cost no object with Genelec. I also really prefer the idea of internally tri-amped and DSP corrected drivers/crossovers.

Kali -- IN8 v2 is a little ugly, I'm getting that 90's wavy cup aesthetic. The price is amazing. And it sort of bothers me that the woofer isn't vertically symmetric like with Genelec. How much performance do they really give up against Genelec coaxial for a super nearfield and low SPL application? I'm 100% percent about measurements and hard data, and after reading the available reviews on this site, it's tough for me to try to justify the nearly eight-fold increase in price. Is there anything I'm missing regarding selection for my application?

Get the Genelecs and be set for life.
Add subs later.

 

[LTig]

Looking for nearfield coaxial monitors to upgrade from Adam T5V, listening distance 1.0-1.2 meter, desktop use directly flanking a 32" monitor, typical SPL <80dB. I specifically want coaxial to optimize response as I move slightly around in my very nearfield listening/seating position.

If you move in the horizontal direction only you won't need ciaxial monitors.

I'd prefer to be able to crossover as low as possible, around 60-70 hz (48dB/octave), since the subs are under the desk and completely occluded from my ears...

Crossing over at 80 Hz is no problem even with the sub under your desk.

 

[Astrozombie]

If you can ask the question and can afford them? Like the guy says be set for life, but I'd bet $20 they're not 8X better than the regular Kali 6''. And you still need a subwoofer. I'd take the R3 off the list for nearfield.

If I ever spent that kinda cash I'd go with the Neumann KH310, 3-way design 8'' woofers for $5K. Hopefully decent until you save for a sub.

 

[AudioJester]

Is Genelec really worth the money over Kali?

Looking for nearfield coaxial monitors to upgrade from Adam T5V, listening distance 1.0-1.2 meter, desktop use directly flanking a 32" monitor, typical SPL <80dB. I specifically want coaxial to optimize response as I move slightly around in my very nearfield listening/seating position.

Rest of system (that I already have) is miniDSP SHD, Dirac, and 2x Rythmik L12 hidden under the desk. I could make modifications to those components if there was a compelling need to, i.e. miniDSP Flex Eight. I entertained the idea of dual Rythmik FM8s on the desk for a while, but I want the setup to be sleek, not cramped.

I'd prefer to be able to crossover as low as possible, around 60-70 hz (48dB/octave), since the subs are under the desk and completely occluded from my ears... which points me to monitors that can competently reproduce 50-60 hz.

I have found available to me:

• $800..... Kali IN-8 V2
• $1600... Kef LS50 Meta (+ amplification)
• $2200... Kef R3 Meta (+ amplification)
• $4000... Genelec 8331A
• $6200... Genelec 8341A

Genelec -- I know they're likely the best and that they hold their value. But after playing around with the upper echelon of headphones, I'm well aware of diminishing returns with additional $$$ spent. I worry that the 8331A won't play quite as low as I'd prefer.

Kef -- They occupy a middle ground in pricing. I feel like I'd rather get a good value with Kali, or go cost no object with Genelec. I also really prefer the idea of internally tri-amped and DSP corrected drivers/crossovers.

Kali -- IN8 v2 is a little ugly, I'm getting that 90's wavy cup aesthetic. The price is amazing. And it sort of bothers me that the woofer isn't vertically symmetric like with Genelec. How much performance do they really give up against Genelec coaxial for a super nearfield and low SPL application? I'm 100% percent about measurements and hard data, and after reading the available reviews on this site, it's tough for me to try to justify the nearly eight-fold increase in price. Is there anything I'm missing regarding selection for my application?

I have 8040b, IN5, Kh120, Kef LSX

Save your money and get the Kali.
Caveat:
1. Unless you can actually hear a difference and prefer one
2. You must have the absolute best

 

[Ellebob]

They are all very good speakers. I would recommend a sub and don't set crossover as low as it can. That defeats the purpose of the subwoofer. Having the bass come from one area gives a consistent bass response and placement is very important for bass reproduction in small home sized rooms.
So, you can get a different bass response if the left, right or sub are playing the bass. Or combos of them. So, it is best to place the sun in a good location for a good response and let it handle the bass.

Anyway, we carry all those models where I work and I would rank them as follows. I haven't compared them all side by side so a lot of this is from memory. Listening to them of possible is definitely recommended.

Genelec 8341
Kali SM-5-C
Genelec 8331
Kali IN-8
Kef R3 Meta
Kef LS50 Meta

YMMV.

 

[Ciobi69]

I have 8040b, IN5, Kh120, Kef LSX

Save your money and get the Kali.
Caveat:
1. Unless you can actually hear a difference and prefer one
2. You must have the absolute best

got the kali myself, best deal i have ever done in audio equipment, changed them only because i did find my dream speakers, but they were good, now they stay in the surround

 

[Pearljam5000]

got the kali myself, best deal i have ever done in audio equipment, changed them only because i did find my dream speakers, but they were good, now they stay in the surround

What are the dream speakers ?

 

[voltronic]

If you are considering Kali for near field, I can enthusiastically recommend the IN-5. I've had mine for a couple months now and they are fantastic in their intended application at my editing workstation. They sounded great out of the box, but went from great to phenomenal after REW/APO correction (set to full range in REW).

Some other members here advised me to go for them instead of the IN-8 V2 because of better linearity and reduced cabinet resonance, at the expense of a bit higher bass distortion. I've been thoroughly happy with them. Speaking of bass, the extension and quality are excellent, and the 8's are just going to get you a bit higher SPL. That probably won't be a factor if you are using them as near fields, and actual measured LF extension between the -5 and 8 V2 is negligible.

 

[Ciobi69]

What are the dream speakers ?

Blade 2 meta

 

[AudioJester]

Blade 2 meta

Damn! What an upgrade!!
Very jealous
I assume the Blade is not being used nearfield.

 

[Ciobi69]

Damn! What an upgrade!!
Very jealous
I assume the Blade is not being used nearfield.

2.7 meters and the Kali worked good too

 

[Pearljam5000]

2.7 meters and the Kali worked good too

What are the main differences between them SQ wise ?

 

[abcde]

If you are considering Kali for near field, I can enthusiastically recommend the IN-5. I've had mine for a couple months now and they are fantastic in their intended application at my editing workstation. They sounded great out of the box, but went from great to phenomenal after REW/APO correction (set to full range in REW).

Some other members here advised me to go for them instead of the IN-8 V2 because of better linearity and reduced cabinet resonance, at the expense of a bit higher bass distortion. I've been thoroughly happy with them. Speaking of bass, the extension and quality are excellent, and the 8's are just going to get you a bit higher SPL. That probably won't be a factor if you are using them as near fields, and actual measured LF extension between the -5 and 8 V2 is negligible.

Interesting, I had simply assumed the IN-8 V2 would be better than the IN-5 as long as I have the desk space. No replacement for displacement, less driver excursion, lower distortion across the frequency range the woofer was expected to play, etc.

A pertinent video from Kali:

Can you share your referenced threads?

 

[voltronic]

Interesting, I had simply assumed the IN-8 V2 would be better than the IN-5 as long as I have the desk space. No replacement for displacement, less driver excursion, lower distortion across the frequency range the woofer was expected to play, etc.

A pertinent video from Kali:

Can you share your referenced threads?

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...-8-inch-at-up-to-1k-a-pair.51205/post-1882081

Easily compare loudspeakers measurements

www.spinorama.org

 

[RobL]

You pay $$$ for the engineering that’s gone into the Genelecs, now whether the performance gain that brings is worth the considerable extra cost to you…
For example, the Kali coax driver has a 1mm protrusion where the tweeter transitions to the midrange: (pic from EAC review)

Erin calculated that this would cause reflections around 8khz, and there was a corresponding dip in the measured FR at that frequency. The Kali coax also looks to have a typical roll surround on the mid driver.

Genelec spent, I’m sure, considerable time and money engineering their coaxial drivers to have completely smooth transitions between each other and the waveguide front of the speaker:

You’re definitely well into the area of diminishing returns spending “The Ones” type money, but squeezing the last bit of performance from a speaker is expensive.

 

[test1223]

Unpopular opinion, but I think in the near field the difference of loudspeaker isn't that great if you use equalisation. When you use a level matched blind test it becomes obvious. Especially if you can't place the monitors that optimal and don't want to listen at louder levels that often the differences are smaller than almost all people think they are.

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

Shortly after completing the first blind listening test, @Inverse_Laplace and I started thinking about all the ways we’d like to improve the rigor and explore other questions. Written summary follows, but here is a video if you prefer that medium: Speakers (calculated preference score in...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Psychoacoustics plays a lot of tricks with us have a look e.g. here
www.hifiohr.de

Edit: fist version of my post wasn't that clear so I edited it

 

[voltronic]

Unpopular opinion, but I think in the near field the difference with equalisation, level matching and blind testing isn't that great. Especially if you can't place the monitors that optimal and don't want to listen at louder levels that often.

Blind Listening Test 2: Neumann KH 80 vs JBL 305p MkII vs Edifier R1280T vs RCF Arya Pro5

Shortly after completing the first blind listening test, @Inverse_Laplace and I started thinking about all the ways we’d like to improve the rigor and explore other questions. Written summary follows, but here is a video if you prefer that medium: Speakers (calculated preference score in...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Psychoacoustics plays a lot of tricks with us have a look e.g. here
www.hifiohr.de

There may be some truth to your statement, but I can say that switching the REW-derived EQ in and out on the fly shows very obvious differences at a variety of listening levels, not just when pushed loud.

One can flip around your statement regarding blind testing and say that if you don't do blind a/b comparisons, then you are subject to confirmation bias. Psychoacoustics play heavily there, which is why audio reviewers may actually think they are hearing major differences with expensive cables.

 

[test1223]

There may be some truth to your statement, but I can say that switching the REW-derived EQ in and out on the fly shows very obvious differences at a variety of listening levels, not just when pushed loud.

Yes, equalisation is not level dependent, but this isn't my point. With louder levels the differences of loudspeakers become more important since there are typically bigger difference in the behavior of loudspeaker at higher listening levels. At lower levels most decent speakers don't have any major problems with nonlinear distortions.

One can flip around your statement regarding blind testing and say that if you don't do blind a/b comparisons, then you are subject to confirmation bias. Psychoacoustics play heavily there, which is why audio reviewers may actually think they are hearing major differences with expensive cables.

Yes, your eyes and thoughts also contribute to your perception of sound.

Now I propose the thrilling argument that you need good looking, expansive gear with high reputation, since it also changes what you hear with the help of your eyes and thoughts