Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[napilopez]

Read the thread, not sure I got it 100%. But isn't this single unit bought for center use? Than was the listening tested mono?

I believe so, but mono is a perfectly valid way of assessing loudspeakers - it tends to reveal flaws in both timbral and spatial qualities more readily than stereo. You'd think spatial qualities would be exclusive to stereo but it turns out you can tell a lot from mono.

 

[amirm]

Than was the listening tested mono?

Yes, and that is how I will be doing all of my listening tests.

 

[vavan]

Damaged speaker would develop distortion, I'm sure it would be visible from the measurements

here's the overlay of distortion graph of lsim 705s that I've had to use to convince poor service men of their defect so I could return those and purchase f208 instead

still not sure what was defect though and when/how exactly it was damaged

 

[617]

Apologies in advance for too much detail. I spend about half my time at the factory, so this is important to me.

All Kali product undergoes end of line testing as a last step before packaging and shipment. Our loudspeakers are first tested for dielectric strength for safety of the AC mains power supply. At the same station, polarity of all transducers is checked acoustically. They then go into an acoustically treated booth where they are checked for rub and buzz and air leaks. This is done with a sine sweep at a level sufficient to excite resonances. Air leaks are checked with a stethoscope at the cabinet joinery, all seams or joints, and at transducer edges. When the speakers leave the booth, they are inspected for appearance criteria and are cleaned in preparation for packaging. All operators after this station wear gloves to avoid soiling of the product. As a lest step before packaging, the loudspeakers are measured in a small chamber acoustically against frequency response and distortion windows / limits.

In addition to end of line testing, we perform dock audits based on Mil-STD 105e with a 0.1% AQL.

Of course this isn't to say that defects don't occasionally happen, but we deeply care about the quality of our product. This is why we spend so much time at the factory making sure that the product we design is what we ship to our customers.

That is good to hear and gives me a lot of confidence in your QC. Thanks for providing this detail.

 

[b1daly]

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.

 

[SIY]

You would but the tools here are not there. The microphone is a transducer itself. So what we measure is the sum total of the microphone distortion and speaker.

Which microphone have you used for these? If you mentioned it and I didn't see it, my apologies.

It readily measures THD. But it is not anechoic. There are some tools there that I am chasing but have not gotten there yet. I am able to correct an in-room response and make it anechoic. But haven't yet figured out how to do that to the distortion curve.

That's easy with derived impulse methods like log-sine sweeps (Farina method). With reflections gated out, the THD+N vs frequency is quasi-anechoic.

 

[thewas]

First a warning for the following post, measuring the full frequency response of 3-way speakers with low crossover frequency with "hobbyists" methods like splicing the near field response of the woofer and ports to the windowed measurement of the upper response is problematic and can have quite some deviations in the bass, which can be also observed for example at some Stereophile measurements.

In my relatively small listening/measuring room it worked well with the Neumann KH310 which I had measured too a long time ago, as its woofer/mid cross is at high 650 Hz vs. the much lower 330 Hz of the Kali IN-8, which come too close to the lower end of the windowed measurement.

So for now I had to prolong the measurement window, taking the floor reflection as an unavoidable compromise and hoping it won't deform too much the question response of its woofer, for better comparison I did also the same for my older KH310 (3-way, closed box) and Genelec M040 (2-way BR) measurements, made for all the splicing in the region 100-200 Hz and included also the nearfield BR outputs for completeness:

These measurements make me now doubt the 3dB too low woofer, which could be due to a fault of the specific test item or the NFS calculation:

In any case, a very interesting topic which can give some new experience and knowledge.

 

[oldsysop]

As to decapitated panther, let's remember that I performed a listening test. And had my wife listen the same. The two pointed to sound that just wasn't pleasing to me. It was the combination of this, and the measurements that led to me giving such a score early.

@Thomas savage : please BAN !

 

[Thomas savage]

@Thomas savage : please BAN !

Iv been trying for years , the guys trolling science.

 

[Krunok]

Iv been trying for years , the guys trolling science.

Bollocks - you're baning him with as much success as Kingdom is doing Brexit.

 

[Krunok]

@Thomas savage : please BAN !

I would also like to remind you that wife was not even in the kitchen, so totally irregular test.

 

[Thomas savage]

I would also like to remind you that wife was not even in the kitchen, so totally irregular test.

She was half way down the drive with her bags packed ..

 

[Krunok]

She was half way down the drive with her bags packed ..

Who was? Duchess Meghan Markle?

 

[amirm]

Which microphone have you used for these? If you mentioned it and I didn't see it, my apologies.

It is a German microphone (naturally ), from Microtech/Geffell. The model number is MK 255. The only distortion spec it has is:
Max. SPL for THD ≤ 3% at 1 kHz 146 dB

 

[SIY]

Thanks, I haven’t tested that one yet...

 

[KSTR]

The pre-polaized MK255 capsule sure is fit and good enough for the purpose of standard speaker measurements, a good compromise of sensitivity/noise, LF and HF extension, and directivity.

 

[spacevector]

Not correct. I will take one more shot at explaining this but if it is not enough, we should have it in another thread.

@amirm, are you able to share this presentation (assuming from Klippel) in its entirety? Seems a lot of a learning to be had in there.

 

[amirm]

@amirm, are you able to share this presentation (assuming from Klippel) in its entirety? Seems a lot of a learning to be had in there.

Sure, it was all shared in the original thread we had on whether I should get into speaker testing.

Here is the Alma presentation: http://warkwyn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NFS-ALMA-2015-PPT.pdf

 

[Blumlein 88]

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.

I am an amateur recording fellow. I sometimes get to record a fair bit and have spells where I get to do little. I'm not a pro who works with this everyday. Translation is a big deal. Especially for an inexperienced part timer like me. When my previous monitor speakers developed a problem, just going by word of mouth I tried a few and ended up with the LSR305's. Obviously it isn't the perfect speaker. It might as well have been compared to my previous monitors.

The ability to mix something, and know what you have was so much better my results took a big jump upwards. With a balanced relatively even response there wasn't so much I needed to compensate for and learn by trial and error. Improved results, less time involved, and better decisions. I'm still no pro, but I suppose its like a carpenter with a crooked ruler vs a good straight accurate ruler. Good tools make for good results.

 

[scott wurcer]

Thanks, I haven’t tested that one yet...

The two source technique can be made to work using IM since the non-linearity is low order and does not have discontinuities. I still have my DIY piston chamber, which ended up by sheer coincidence to almost be exactly the one described on the ARTA site. I used a medical grade pressure transducer which has the advantage of absolute calibration and 0.1% non-linearity with the disadvantage of 10uV/PA sensitivity. The results were quite remarkable for DIY. If I revived it would you like to try it?

No! We ate meat! Zardoz betrayed us. We were hunters, not farmers!