Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[617]

Besides the Kalis, I've also been incredibly pleased with the Vantoos, likewise full DSP crossover and Class D biamps. Kalis play louder and go deeper, Vanatoos have many more input options. Insane performance for the price.

The little ones look like incredible desktop speakers

 

[maty]

As 617, I also distrust the DA / AD usually implemented, as of cheap class D with tweeter. In DIY loudspeakers many use the cheap minidsp, but they are of insuficcient sound quality, becoming the bottleneck of the audio system.

If it is to produce or listen to modern commercial music or cinema few to object.

Kali, like many others (as my KEF Q100), uses thin MDF. And the front is plastic. They need to add damping.

 

[Mnyb]

The IN-8 is definitely DSP crossover, it was previously stated by Charles himself!

Thanks for pointing , that was what i searched for

 

[Mnyb]

Ok thanks for putting me straigth .

Now my gripe with this :

It's a missed oportunity here ,if the xover is in DSP the product should also come with a digital input(s) and built in digital volume control and possibly also subwoofer managment as a bonus .

I'm quite fond of DSP based speakers (I have Meridian speakers) so I'm all for the design concept , but it seems a little underutilised in this speaker , but then ofcourse the price for the IN8 is fantastic, so i recon even an extra AES/spdif input probably costs more than a DSP chip so budget and Bom is really tigth.

 

[Mnyb]

Have to add as I'm not an audio proffesional .

I'm well avare that no one can hear a well implemented AD/DA loop it does not usually give you any audible problems . There been blind test where people looped stuff 10 times trough such a chain and you cant tell (as both AD and DA are solved problems) . And actually just like the case with volume controll there are benefitts doing xover and eq digitally that outweigths the AD/DA problems .

But i still prefer a total system solution where you dont have several AD/DA links in the chain .

In the best of worlds everything is digital from source (file or CD) to the final amp that drives the actual speaker element (tweeter or woofer or midrange) i will decide this if i'll be president of the world...

 

[Juhazi]

So, Kalis have dsp hidden inside, but not a single word about it in user manual or advertizing. Wonder why...

I can imagine two reasons,
- many people hate AD/DA and dsp, they believe in analog signal path, or just love it (so to fool them)
- implementing digital input and perhaps open dsp settings will be done later on, in higher cost product line

 

[thewas]

Not just the Kali, many/most low price monitors nowadays use a DSP crossover and don't state it explicitly, possibly due to reasons you mention above. One more disadvantage of such implementations is the reduced repairability and availabity of spare parts after some years compared to discrete electronics, but this is not really important in the low price range anyway.

 

[edechamps]

So, Kalis have dsp hidden inside, but not a single word about it in user manual or advertizing. Wonder why...

Because it's an internal implementation detail that shouldn't matter to the user? The end-to-end performance of the product is what matters, not how it's achieved. I couldn't care less if the speaker uses DSP, horns, quantum waveguides, unobtainium cones or magical pixie dust - all I care about is the end result which is captured in measurements such as the spinorama.

 

[thewas]

Exactly, same as also why many monitor brands don't give information about stuff like the crossover frequencies and filters, most studio people don't care about such technical details like us but only about the total final result and output.

 

[tomtoo]

Dsp x-overs are great. They give you possibilitys you just not have in the analog domain. If you like to have a lot power in a small package nothing better than a dsp.

 

[SIY]

Exactly, same as also why many monitor brands don't give information about stuff like the crossover frequencies and filters, most studio people don't care about such technical details like us but only about the total final result and output.

This is exactly it- the target market isn't hifi fans, but studios and prosumer. They already have speakers driven by line level balanced, so these drop in.

A perceptive reviewer (/looks innocent) observed that the Kalis are monitors that can be used for hifi and the Vanatoos were hifi that could be used as monitors.

 

[tomtoo]

Think the homerecording market is a huge motor.

 

[amirm]

There been blind test where people looped stuff 10 times trough such a chain and you cant tell (as both AD and DA are solved problems) .

If you mean Ethan's test, I had no trouble telling the difference:

----
foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.2
2014/07/18 06:40:07
File A: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_original.wav
File B: C:\Users\Amir\Music\Ethan Soundblaster\sb20x_pass1.wav
06:40:07 : Test started.
06:41:03 : 01/01 50.0%
06:41:16 : 02/02 25.0%
06:41:24 : 03/03 12.5%
06:41:33 : 04/04 6.3%
06:41:53 : 05/05 3.1%
06:42:02 : 06/06 1.6%
06:42:22 : 07/07 0.8%
06:42:34 : 08/08 0.4%
06:42:43 : 09/09 0.2%
06:42:56 : 10/10 0.1%
06:43:08 : 11/11 0.0%
06:43:16 : Test finished.
----------
Total: 11/11 (0.0%)

So 100% detection for even one pass.

----

Granted, many people could not but the difference can be there.

 

[SDX-LV]

...
It's a missed oportunity here ,if the xover is in DSP the product should also come with a digital input(s) and built in digital volume control and possibly also subwoofer managment as a bonus .

I'm quite fond of DSP based speakers (I have Meridian speakers) so I'm all for the design concept , but it seems a little underutilised in this speaker , but then ofcourse the price for the IN8 is fantastic, so i recon even an extra AES/spdif input probably costs more than a DSP chip so budget and Bom is really tigth.

...
But i still prefer a total system solution where you dont have several AD/DA links in the chain .

In the best of worlds everything is digital from source (file or CD) to the final amp that drives the actual speaker element (tweeter or woofer or midrange) i will decide this if i'll be president of the world...

Very much agree - why do we spend money on fancy DACs to feed some black-box ADC inside a speaker? I made some research around this before and it came down to 2 major questions:

1. Are there any surround processors with HDMI inputs and all digital outputs for under 5000 USD? I would like for under 1000 USD, but I challenge anyone finding anything under 5000 USD first... So this availability problem effectively brings us to analog audio outs as the only option (XLR or RCA).
2. As the powered speakers have AD/DA converters in them anyway, how good should the source DACs be to maximize the system performance? in terms of SINAD, what is the point of 110dB+ DAC when there is perhaps 90dB AD-DA inside this Kali IN-8? @amirm - Do you think measuring internal AD-DA performance of powered speakers is meaningful in this context?

The reason active monitors are still the way to go is because it is outright wasteful to build universal amps and universal speakers when there are immense benefits to optimize them for each other as a system. When consumer High-End speakers go active, perhaps people like will stop hunting studio monitors (and no, Meridian, Lexicon, Lyngdorf and B&O are luxury goods, not a real alternative).

Note, there is the https://www.wisaassociation.org wireless all-digital stuff which is kind-of cool, but the problems are overwhelming:

• Almost non-existent advanced DSP / calibration / setup options - basically forget about REWs or Diracs.
• depressingly limited choices for subwoofers. And no multi-subs?
• Generally no published measurements for WiSa speakers.
• Lack of adapters like WiSa-to-AES/EBU or WiSa-to-RCA to expand your options.

 

[amirm]

Do you think measuring internal AD-DA performance of powered speakers is meaningful in this context?

It is not easy to make such measurements. So not in the cards except for some special project in the future.

 

[dshreter]

Note, there is the https://www.wisaassociation.org wireless all-digital stuff which is kind-of cool, but the problems are overwhelming:

• Almost non-existent advanced DSP / calibration / setup options - basically forget about REWs or Diracs.
• depressingly limited choices for subwoofers. And no multi-subs?
• Generally no published measurements for WiSa speakers.
• Lack of adapters like WiSa-to-AES/EBU or WiSa-to-RCA to expand your options.

The appeal of powered speakers in the home is greatly diminished because they are clunky to integrate, even for stereo-only. If building these types of products for consumers, they would be worlds easier to use with toslink or HDMI inputs as well as supporting IR volume control.

WiSa has a lot of potential, and I'm hopeful we will see a strong ecosystem of products in the future. If there were WiSa-to-AES/EBU adapters, then hubs like this one coming from Buchardt would be awesome to use with powered monitors. I would hope there are a variety of stereo and surround versions of this concept, but I would gladly pay for the Buchardt if there were receivers to work with any powered monitor I'd like. Does that not exist because of DRM requirements or something?

 

[pozz]

Interestingly enough using professional monitors that adhere to good engineering practices might actually assist in closing the "Circle of confusion" that Dr. Toole talks about in his book. Of course in order to really do this it would require you to use the monitors used in mastering the original recording as well as being in a similar acoustic environment.

Having said that, there is the issue that Genelec site is speaking too in the graphs discussed earlier where you have overall displacement capabilities (linearity over a specified dynamic range) and dispersion characteristics for a given acoustic environment and a directivity index that tells how much dispersion you have at any given frequency. Too wide of a dispersion in a large room with a listening distance beyond what would be considered mid-field or near-field and you will be in a diffuse field scenario (depending on the reflective and absorptive characteristics of the room/RT60). There are no current specifications for this. A spec that tells the ratio of direct to reflected energy would be useful to assist in getting a more consistent sound-field. These are areas that would assist people in achieving more consistent and accurate sound reproduction in any given space. In live or pro sound applications, these parameters are often used to achieve the desired result for a given acoustic environment.s

Floyd Toole has said that we need recommended specifications in these areas if we wish to achieve a better level of fidelity in sound reproduction. Pro monitors do not have different acoustic sound reproduction goals than typical loudspeakers. It's. just that professional monitors typically adhere closer to certain design specifications than some consumer loudspeakers. As well as some "high -end" companies have design philosophies that move away from science and more towards an intuitional art-based design technique based on some empirical experiences.

The reproduction of sound is in fact a science. Creating the music is an art. Conflating these two is common among many audiophiles. This is why Floyd Toole developed a double blind listening test in order to clear up any misconceptions as well as to help correlate the objective characteristics with the subjective listening experience.

You've previously said you have expertise in this area, but I find a few things you said strange.

Small rooms will never achieve a diffuse field, the only type of sound field in which RT60 calculations are valid. This is one of the difficulties in correct acoustic treatment, since a diffuse field assumes that acoustic energy is the same in every direction, while small rooms have significant modal activity even in the midrange. Part of the same issue is specifying the ratio of direct-to-reflected sound, which is approximate at best, not at all precise enough to have manufacturers define a spec based on it.

 

[Jaxx1138]

You've previously said you have expertise in this area, but I find a few things you said strange.

Small rooms will never achieve a diffuse field, the only type of sound field in which RT60 calculations are valid. This is one of the difficulties in correct acoustic treatment, since a diffuse field assumes that acoustic energy is the same in every direction, while small rooms have significant modal activity even in the midrange. Part of the same issue is specifying the ratio of direct-to-reflected sound, which is approximate at best, not at all precise enough to have manufacturers define a spec based on it.

It is true, that no listening environments ever go to full free or diffuse field. But that is what the Genelec spread sheet was for. To assist those in determining the size of monitor they would need for their specific acoustic conditions.

All rooms have modal activity. It's just a matter of where the Schroeder frequency starts based on the volume of the space and to some degree the dispersion of energy of the loudspeaker as well as its physical location in that acoustic space in relation to the listener. Rooms with an RT60 of < 0.3 seconds are called acoustically "dead". Rooms with an RT60 of > 2 seconds are considered to be "echoic". RT60 is a good tool for predicting intelligibility, and for the selection of type and requirements for acoustical materials. RT60 is used to evaluate many types of acoustic environments.

You could create a spec that defines the directivity index and what directivity index works best in specific acoustic environments. Everything from small rooms all the way to stadiums. There is not a defined spec for directivity. But there are speakers that have very different dispersion characteristics. This can cause different representations of acoustic recordings (timbre differences primarily) because of the different direct to reflected energy.

 

[pozz]

It is true, that no listening environments ever go to full free or diffuse field. But that is what the Genelec spread sheet was for. To assist those in determining the size of monitor they would need for their specific acoustic conditions.

All rooms have modal activity. It's just a matter of where the Schroeder frequency starts based on the volume of the space and to some degree the dispersion of energy of the loudspeaker as well as its physical location in that acoustic space in relation to the listener. Rooms with an RT60 of < 0.3 seconds are called acoustically "dead". Rooms with an RT60 of > 2 seconds are considered to be "echoic". RT60 is a good tool for predicting intelligibility, and for the selection of type and requirements for acoustical materials. RT60 is used to evaluate many types of acoustic environments.

You could create a spec that defines the directivity index and what directivity index works best in specific acoustic environments. Everything from small rooms all the way to stadiums. There is not a defined spec for directivity. But there are speakers that have very different dispersion characteristics. This can cause different representations of acoustic recordings (timbre differences primarily) because of the different direct to reflected energy.

Could you give an example of how that spec would look for a few loudspeakers with different directivity?

 

[Jaxx1138]

Could you give an example of how that spec would look for a few loudspeakers with different directivity?

Since the directivity index is a direct comparison of the on axis verses off axis response, you could create a ratio between the on axis vs the off axis that determines the linearity over a specified frequency range. You would have to define a window of the angles considered to be the most pertinent. The polar plots already show us this data. The off axis response ideally would track the on axis in a linear fashion and only losing some SPL but maintaining the same differences (dBSPL) at all frequencies reproduced. Amir's response curves already calculate sound power which is very closely related. But we could use a spec that shows the linearity of the sound power directly related to how closely it maps to the on axis response .

The straighter(linear)the line above the better. The more the maximum and minimum of this line the more the dispersion changes with respect to frequency. The flatter or less rate of change per frequency the more consistent the directivity over that range of frequencies. Meaning that the frequency response changes very little as compared to the axis of incident to the loudspeaker. If it does change then the first reflections from the loudspeaker will be different from the direct sound. This is usually perceived as a change in timbre and is usually not preferred in double blind listening tests. Maintaining the frequency response over a defined listening window is key to obtaining consistent and/or good sound in a defined acoustic space. Smaller rooms would generally use a wider dispersion loudspeaker where the first reflections are less than a 30ms and generally speaking you would use a narrower dispersion unit as the first reflections are greater in time. You don't want lots of late reflections as it will muddle the sound.

The above plot is a Dutch and Dutch 8.C powered monitor. This has incredible directivity control. Because of this it will sound very consistent in different acoustic environments. The spec would be related to how smooth or linear the frequency response is over a range of frequencies and how big that window is in degrees before it loses 10-12dB of energy. There are heat maps that Amir has provided to show the directivity of other loudspeakers. None quite match up to the control this unit has. This unit does use a cardiod designed woofer section in order to achieve this control pattern. Defining it down to a number or range of numbers would take some more thought and research on my part.