Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[Blumlein 88]

If we are a cult I should at least be getting my underpants ironed for me..

I mean whats the point otherwise!

Maybe its an effie you need. No not that effie.

 

[Krunok]

Maybe its an effie you need. No not that effie.

Nah.. That device looks expensive and his gear is not that sensitive.

 

[Juhazi]

I am quite disappointed that Kali didn't get back to you. They don't seem to have any difficulty sending pairs of them to every random 20-50K subscriber count YouTuber out there. Not a good look, imo.

Or they are still working to fix the speaker... Actually if I remember right the designers were at a congress or show.

 

[Deleted member 65]

So no measurements of IN-8 from you after all this?

FYI, since I did not hear back from Kali, I purchased an IN-8 today from Amazon. Should be here this coming week.

You paid 50,00 USD

to Audio Science Review LLC

Upped my forum donation supporting @amirm time & purchases and not remeasuring the KH80 ... ;-)

 

[Doodski]

Sorry you mistook my humor. I am unaware of the book mentioned. Please take the time to watch the film, an insane farce!

Has Anyone else seen the film?

Mars Attacks is a awesome movie... I've seen it dozens of times. We used to use it as a demo in store on like 50+ TV's at the same time

 

[fredoamigo]

Or they are still working to fix the speaker... Actually if I remember right the designers were at a congress or show.

with this atmosphere of general suspicion it's much better to buy a sample on amazon.

 

[noobie1]

How many people own Kali speakers and like them? I've never listened to IN-8 but lived with LP-8 for almost 2 months. Returned them because I was disappointed. Didn't understand the hype.

I've owned 4-5 pieces of gear that Amir eventually measured. My personal experiences have always aligned with his conclusions. I trust Amir over Kali (or any ASR poster) until there is conclusive evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[Mnyb]

Still wondering if this is not a QC issue . Kali did describe a quite good procedure a couple of posts back , but is it always in enforced ? If they manufacture cheaply in the Far East . I’ll bet this program is enforced when the boss visits , who knows what they do when no one is looking .

The same old problem with outsourcing as usual , I work at a quite big multinational company and product recalls do happens even if we have good QC sometimes the subcontractors swap in ”equivalent” components or the spec changes on components or or ... there are thousands of reasons . You must be on top all the time and never take things as a given.

 

[Absolute]

I don't trust people when they're after my money. I certainly don't trust people I don't know on the sole basis that someone somewhere has a high regard for this individual, even if the former accolades are high.

Independent testing of any product is the only trustworthy source of objective information. Let's wait to the new measurement of the IN-8 to determine whether or not Kali has trust-issues they need to attend to.

 

[Xulonn]

Yet again, @amirm appears to be on solid ground - legally and apparently from most of the science and logic-based members here. As happened after a few other controversial test results here, there is an obvious cooperative (mostly) effort to determine whether the unit tested was defective, if there is indeed a design flaw that produces the results published by ASR or wheter the testing setup and methods themselves were the problem. However, we seem to have repeated adversarial discussions here where a newly-arrived antagonist will not acknowledge questions and pertinent criticisms of their comments, making an intelligent and productive discussion difficult.

Remember the lawsuit that Bose brought against Consumer Reports magazine? Accusers must prove malicious intent to sue for disparagement, and my observation is that @amirm pursues accuracy and truth, defends his methods and results with science and repeatability, accepts valid criticism, and modifies setups, systems and methods when verified evidence supports such actions. OTOH, unlike the "old days" when bigger corporations could bully smaller companies by threatening to sue - and force the smaller company to comply or face HUGE, company-destroying legal costs to defend themselves, the internet makes it difficult to use such tactics to make unwanted controversy disappear from "the media" or the internet.

The magazine Consumer Reports had published in 1970 a review of an unusual loudspeaker system manufactured by Bose Corporation, called the Bose 901. The review expressed skepticism of the system's quality and recommended that consumers delay purchase until they had investigated for themselves whether the loudspeaker system's unusual attributes would suit them. Bose objected to numerous statements in the article, including the sentences, "Worse, individual instruments heard through the Bose system seemed to grow to gigantic proportions and tended to wander about the room. For instance, a violin appeared to be 10 feet (3.0 m) wide and a piano stretched from wall to wall." Bose demanded a retraction when they learned that Consumer Reports changed what the original reviewer wrote about the speakers in his pre-publication draft, which the magazine refused to do.

 

[Jmudrick]

Yet again, @amirm appears to be on solid ground - legally and apparently from most of the science and logic-based members here. As happened after a few other controversial test results here, there is an obvious cooperative (mostly) effort to determine whether the unit tested was defective, if there is indeed a design flaw that produces the results published by ASR or wheter the testing setup and methods themselves were the problem. However, we seem to have repeated adversarial discussions here where a newly-arrived antagonist will not acknowledge questions and pertinent criticisms of their comments, making an intelligent and productive discussion difficult.

Remember the lawsuit that Bose brought against Consumer Reports magazine? Accusers must prove malicious intent to sue for disparagement, and my observation is that @amirm pursues accuracy and truth, defends his methods and results with science and repeatability, accepts valid criticism, and modifies setups, systems and methods when verified evidence supports such actions. OTOH, unlike the "old days" when bigger corporations could bully smaller companies by threatening to sue - and force the smaller company to comply or face HUGE, company-destroying legal costs to defend themselves, the internet makes it difficult to use such tactics to make unwanted controversy disappear from "the media" or the internet.

Continuing to label folks who ask questions antagonists ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished rep outside this community. John could have added a lot here had he not been piled on. Well done

 

[Xulonn]

Continuing to label folks who ask questions antagonists ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished rep outside this community. John could have added a lot here had he not been piled on. Well done

"...ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished reputation..."?? LOL Perhaps among small enclaves of audio subjectivists whose feelings were hurt when they were called out or challenged based on science and hard evidence. I have seen thousands of questions acknowledged and responded to here at ASR without antagonism or hostility.

I see the same reaction about "labeling" when people who "deny" the reality of the findings of climate science are "described" as "denialists". Communications scientists discuss in their writings about the defensive nature of how those thusly described whine about the words used, even when those words are accurate and appropriate descriptors.

Please ask yourself why did JAXX/John's style of "questioning" evoke such strong and eventually negative responses? Many other well-known audio professionals manage to post information and ask questions here at ASR without provoking such reactions. Refusing to acknowledge or respond to appropriate criticisms and counter-questions is in itself "antagonistic", first creating frustration, and then sometimes, a "hostile" response.

I gladly include myself and identify with those who support civil back and forth debates and discussions, but when someone pops up suddenly for the first time, asks questions without doing a bit of research, and quickly becomes defensive, the discussion is likely to turn to being non-productive and negative in nature, at least for a while.

We have some very intelligent and informed members at ASR, and most regulars that I have observed can - and sometimes do - react the "tone" (pun intended) of posts, including some posts that occasionally rise to the level of being somewhat "passive-aggressive", and are certain to evoke a strong response.

 

[TLEDDY]

When any one asks the same questions ad nauseum, it becomes tiring. Debate is healthy, beating a dead horse is not.

The Forum does not have rules of debate - too bad

 

[SIY]

How many people own Kali speakers and like them?

Me, for one.

 

[Jaxx1138]

View attachment 47501

"...ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished reputation..."?? LOL Perhaps among small enclaves of audio subjectivists whose feelings were hurt when they were called out or challenged based on science and hard evidence. I have seen thousands of questions acknowledged and responded to here at ASR without antagonism or hostility.

I see the same reaction about "labeling" when people who "deny" the reality of the findings of climate science are "described" as "denialists". Communications scientists discuss in their writings about the defensive nature of how those thusly described whine about the words used, even when those words are accurate and appropriate descriptors.

Please ask yourself why did JAXX/John's style of "questioning" evoke such strong and eventually negative responses? Many other well-known audio professionals manage to post information and ask questions here at ASR without provoking such reactions. Refusing to acknowledge or respond to appropriate criticisms and counter-questions is in itself "antagonistic", first creating frustration, and then sometimes, a "hostile" response.

I gladly include myself and identify with those who support civil back and forth debates and discussions, but when someone pops up suddenly for the first time, asks questions without doing a bit of research, and quickly becomes defensive, the discussion is likely to turn to being non-productive and negative in nature, at least for a while.

We have some very intelligent and informed members at ASR, and most regulars that I have observed can - and sometimes do - react the "tone" (pun intended) of posts, including some posts that occasionally rise to the level of being somewhat "passive-aggressive", and are certain to evoke a strong response.

I would strongly disagree with you.

View attachment 47501

"...ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished reputation..."?? LOL Perhaps among small enclaves of audio subjectivists whose feelings were hurt when they were called out or challenged based on science and hard evidence. I have seen thousands of questions acknowledged and responded to here at ASR without antagonism or hostility.

I see the same reaction about "labeling" when people who "deny" the reality of the findings of climate science are "described" as "denialists". Communications scientists discuss in their writings about the defensive nature of how those thusly described whine about the words used, even when those words are accurate and appropriate descriptors.

Please ask yourself why did JAXX/John's style of "questioning" evoke such strong and eventually negative responses? Many other well-known audio professionals manage to post information and ask questions here at ASR without provoking such reactions.
I gladly include myself and identify with those who support civil back and forth debates and discussions, but when someone pops up suddenly for the first time, asks questions without doing a bit of research, and quickly becomes defensive, the discussion is likely to turn to being non-productive and negative in nature, at least for a while.

We have some very intelligent and informed members at ASR, and most regulars that I have observed can - and sometimes do - react the "tone" (pun intended) of posts, including some posts that occasionally rise to the level of being somewhat "passive-aggressive", and are certain to evoke a strong response.

 

[jasonq997]

Continuing to label folks who ask questions antagonists ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished rep outside this community. John could have added a lot here had he not been piled on. Well done

This website will always have a "pretty tarnished rep" among people who don't like to have their feelings tarnished by reality.

 

[Jaxx1138]

View attachment 47501

"...ensures ASR will continue to suffer a pretty tarnished reputation..."?? LOL Perhaps among small enclaves of audio subjectivists whose feelings were hurt when they were called out or challenged based on science and hard evidence. I have seen thousands of questions acknowledged and responded to here at ASR without antagonism or hostility.

I see the same reaction about "labeling" when people who "deny" the reality of the findings of climate science are "described" as "denialists". Communications scientists discuss in their writings about the defensive nature of how those thusly described whine about the words used, even when those words are accurate and appropriate descriptors.

Please ask yourself why did JAXX/John's style of "questioning" evoke such strong and eventually negative responses? Many other well-known audio professionals manage to post information and ask questions here at ASR without provoking such reactions. Refusing to acknowledge or respond to appropriate criticisms and counter-questions is in itself "antagonistic", first creating frustration, and then sometimes, a "hostile" response.

I gladly include myself and identify with those who support civil back and forth debates and discussions, but when someone pops up suddenly for the first time, asks questions without doing a bit of research, and quickly becomes defensive, the discussion is likely to turn to being non-productive and negative in nature, at least for a while.

"We have some very intelligent and informed members at ASR, and most regulars that I have observed can - and sometimes do - react the "tone" (pun intended) of posts, including some posts that occasionally rise to the level of being somewhat "passive-aggressive", and are certain to evoke a strong response.

Refusing to acknowledge or respond to appropriate criticisms and counter-questions is in itself "antagonistic", first creating frustration, and then sometimes, a "hostile" response."

Your comments border on narcissism.. It is not related to scientific investigation. None of these type of comments refer to the metrics or testing. You are simply being demeaning. I would suggest it is you that has chosen not to be civil. This environment is like a clique that excludes any inquiry from people outside the chosen few. It's very sad to see this. I assume that any questions that I do have will be met with more Ad Hominem attacks. Which is why I have chosen to leave. I am not sure why you are so hostile when anyone is asking about any of these tests or processes in general. The defensive posture of the group makes it appear that truth is not something that you are after. You are making back handed comments and then pretending to be noble. I do not believe this to be appropriate behavior. It's better that I leave than to actually tell what I do know. This is a political site not a scientific one. Amir has a conflict of interest in his reviewing since he is a dealer for some of the products he reviews. So when someone asks questions and you tell them they are ignorant and stupid for asking, it does not look good from others outside this forum. I only had the desire to understand how the process was being deployed. I was not seeking to discredit anyone. But I was met with responses that really didn't answer questions but told to essentially "shut up' and that I was not "qualified" to inquiry. Thanks for those that did provide me with crucial information. Have a nice day.

 

[Xulonn]

Amir has a conflict of interest in his reviewing since he is a dealer for some of the products he reviews

Yo dude - @amirm - what 'ya selling today? I couldn't find your online store!

 

[twelti]

Ah, warm welcome! Great to have you here Todd. I upgraded your title.

Many thanks!

 

[twelti]

Dr. Toole's experiment comparing different speakers in different rooms shows that the same speaker is preferred regardless of room, even though the room may change the sound of each. The room affects each speaker equally so the preference isn't going to change.

Ahh, but not at low frequencies of course. The boundary/mode effects and all could have a large effect.