• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Kali Audio Appears to Be Releasing a Coaxial Speaker (NAMM video featuring Charles Sprinkle)

They are something that started out as NHT 3.3s, but are now pretty different. Multiamped, changes in midwoofer volumes, and significant changes in crossover points and slopes. Cabinet outer dimensions are still the same.
 
I think I know what DI is, but someone tell me exactly what it is.
 
Blumlein 88 said:
Too short on time for a full explanation. DI is Directivity Index. You can probably search for info about it from Toole or Harman.
Click to expand...

I thought it was about directivity.
 
SIY said:
They are something that started out as NHT 3.3s, but are now pretty different. Multiamped, changes in midwoofer volumes, and significant changes in crossover points and slopes. Cabinet outer dimensions are still the same.
Click to expand...
Ah, she might have a point, they do lack a bit of visual elegance ;).
 
And she hates the color. 2001 Monolith black.
 
Ron Texas said:
I thought it was about directivity.
Click to expand...
It is. Have a few minutes now.

The DI value is on axis sound to total radiated power in a ratio.

An omni would have a very low nearly zero DI. Because on axis sound is only a small portion of the total sound power.

Something like a flat wide panel for higher frequencies would have a very high DI because nearly all sound power would be straight ahead and little elsewhere (I'm ignoring the backwave for illustration purposes).

Something with maybe a cardioid like pattern would have a moderate DI index because much of the sound power is on axis or nearly so. Not much to sides and nearly none to the rear. Normally you'll have moderately high DI for upper frequencies and the DI decreases as you go lower in frequency.
 
I was trying to decode this statement by Dr. Toole:

"Figure 7.12 in my current book describes an elaborate test done around 1985. I show that the least preferred loudspeaker had arguably the most constant DI, but was more directional than the higher rated speakers with quite uneven off axis radiation, but more of it. Listeners seemed to have voted for more "space" and seemed to be able to rationalize the low-Q directional variations."

Now, I believe this DI is what we see in the colored graphics from Princeton which (I believe) are measuring how even the off axis response is. My understanding of what Dr. Toole found in his 1985 test is listeners don't mind uneven and prolific off axis response. Therefore, I deduce a wiggling profile in the Princeton data is not an indication of poor speaker quality or deficient engineering skills.

Two members here have been making a big deal about this particular kind of data while misinterpreting it's effect. I will not mention any names to protect the guilty.
 
Ron Texas said:
I was trying to decode this statement by Dr. Toole:

"Figure 7.12 in my current book describes an elaborate test done around 1985. I show that the least preferred loudspeaker had arguably the most constant DI, but was more directional than the higher rated speakers with quite uneven off axis radiation, but more of it. Listeners seemed to have voted for more "space" and seemed to be able to rationalize the low-Q directional variations."

Now, I believe this DI is what we see in the colored graphics from Princeton which (I believe) are measuring how even the off axis response is. My understanding of what Dr. Toole found in his 1985 test is listeners don't mind uneven and prolific off axis response. Therefore, I deduce a wiggling profile in the Princeton data is not an indication of poor speaker quality or deficient engineering skills.

Two members here have been making a big deal about this particular kind of data while misinterpreting it's effect. I will not mention any names to protect the guilty.
Click to expand...
Well constant DI probably means it changed very little from low to high frequencies. And it apparently was a high DI being more directional. So there would have been no reflections from sidewalls. The listening panel preferred a less directional speaker with uneven off axis radiation because apparently they prefer some reflection even of poor quality to no reflections. Or that is how I interpret what he said.

I wouldn't take that to mean listeners don't mind uneven off axis radiation. Only that no off axis radiation is liked less than even poor off axis radiation. Presumably a speaker with lower DI and smooth off axis radiation would be preferred over both other types. Like the plot of the Revel 228 BE.
The Revel 228 Be
1549572011661.png

And how about a Sounlab A1 which doesn't look so good.
1549572046455.png

An Innersound Kaya is one not fitting Harman's idea of good either.
1549572078146.png

Martin Logan Quest Z (which may have been similar to what is being talked about in your quote)
1549572129244.png
 
Blumlein 88 said:
Well constant DI probably means it changed very little from low to high frequencies. And it apparently was a high DI being more directional. So there would have been no reflections from sidewalls. The listening panel preferred a less directional speaker with uneven off axis radiation because apparently they prefer some reflection even of poor quality to no reflections. Or that is how I interpret what he said.

I wouldn't take that to mean listeners don't mind uneven off axis radiation. Only that no off axis radiation is liked less than even poor off axis radiation. Presumably a speaker with lower DI and smooth off axis radiation would be preferred over both other types. Like the plot of the Revel 228 BE.
Click to expand...

This stuff gets complicated fast.
 
Blumlein 88 said:
Well constant DI probably means it changed very little from low to high frequencies. And it apparently was a high DI being more directional. So there would have been no reflections from sidewalls. The listening panel preferred a less directional speaker with uneven off axis radiation because apparently they prefer some reflection even of poor quality to no reflections. Or that is how I interpret what he said.

I wouldn't take that to mean listeners don't mind uneven off axis radiation. Only that no off axis radiation is liked less than even poor off axis radiation. Presumably a speaker with lower DI and smooth off axis radiation would be preferred over both other types. Like the plot of the Revel 228 BE.
Click to expand...

I read it this way too. There is no excuse against smooth off-axis, but the choices of constant vs increasing DI, and wide vs relatively narrow, depends on the listener circumstances, such as musical genre, listening distance.

The designs in the thread I started are all united by their smooth off-axis, but differ in DI and width of dispersion (itself measured by the magnitude of DI). Just because some, even if uneven off-axis is preferable to no off-axis doesn't mean we shouldn't call out uneven off-axis where we have the capacity to do better - even at the same price.
 
SIY said:
And she hates the color. 2001 Monolith black.
Click to expand...

Kantor-era NHT had a really beautiful light veneer (Sycamore?). It's a pity that most of them were and are gloss black.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIY
jhaider said:
Kantor-era NHT had a really beautiful light veneer (Sycamore?). It's a pity that most of them were and are gloss black.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen those and that would have been better. But I was offered the black ones at a stupidly low price, so... She's actually volunteered to refinish them. It's wonderful to have a wife who is a skilled tool user.

OT aside: Even stock, I have to say that in the category of floor-standing dynamic speakers, there's very little out there today, 20 years later, that would make me want to change. The rework I did took that a bit further, getting me a bit better bass clarity and extension. There's other, much more expensive speakers out there that I think are better in one or two ways, but none that I've heard that overall make me want to upgrade.
 
This would explain why the IN-8 is not listed anywhere, Kali said on instagram ( in the comments of this post ) that it is still in the prototyping phase. They also gave away that this will be one step up from the Lone Pine line of speakers and will be called the Independence line
 
I wonder...Is the IN-8 comparable to the Jbl 7 series???
 
Jaimo said:
I wonder...Is the IN-8 comparable to the Jbl 7 series???
Click to expand...

I'm also very curious about the performance of this. It's only $400 MSRP which seems really cheap. If it's anywhere close to the Genelec coaxials, which has to be the goal they're shooting for I feel like, then it could be bargain of the year.

Here's hoping the measurements are good!
 
According to Reddit, the IN-8 is an enhancement to the existing Lone Pine Monitor (LP-8) and is based on the LP platform (Amp, DSP etc). The reddit post also mentions that Kali will start work on a monitor to compete with 7-series and other "$1000 monitors" but this is a way off.

I need to find a good deal on a pair of LSR708's now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom