Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[Mnyb]

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.

I’m not sure its that one many people done this over the years , sorry to not have any source

 

[Mnyb]

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.

Now we are off topic again .

I tried to answer the same question 12-18years ago , thats why i ended up with a propriotary and expensive meridian system . I’m quite sure the whole thing could be done at 1/5 price and better if more brands got the Idea . But in the land of the blind the one eyed is king . It actually does this digital transfer of DVDA disc diskret 5.1 ch of 24/96 audio to a central processor with room correction ( and codec support for movies ) then feed the speakers via a digital link that has the audio + meta information such as volume . The speakers has DSP xover and one amp to one driver .

The problems was .

Copy protection concerns , there was/is not many ways to get digital multichannel out of DVDA or SACD players in fact it’s was not licensed or allowed ? In practice you could not get one. You could get some schetchy mods done..
But basically not a viable solution later on basically after both SACD and DVDA died HDMI closed the gap to the reciever so nowadays you get halfway .
( also nowadays with cracked copy protection and a computer diy is possible ).

Consequently the pre/processors for the home market is was non existing and under developed.

There is no universal digital speaker connectivity standard , there may exist some pro standards.

It’s a bit telling that even in the pro world using AD/DA just to be able to easilly drop in a monitor for listening is a common solution .

So my future hifi purchase will be a bit back to the future , probably passive speaker again if not a pro active model.
Hence my interest for the very reasonable approach Kali has shoved us .

Meanwhile high end hifi shot themself in the foot chasing some unicorns like 10000$ power cords ..

 

[pozz]

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.

Wouldn't it be much simpler to ask manufacturers to deliver accurate spinorama CTA/CEA 2034 curves? A ratio of differences on the other hand would be much less revealing.

There doesn't seem to be much reason to define a new spec given that there hasn't been enough research on defining optimal directivity for specific use-cases. Control room design is still fairly unclear and follows older standards even in recent publications, preferring direct sound, dampened and delayed early reflections and highly dampened late reflections for stereo (multichannel is different). Concert halls for classical music use very specific reinforcement to increase the reverberant energy and support even coverage across the audience, big halls having very different problems than small ones. Stadiums and clubs, again, mostly even coverage. Domestic listening rooms are then another thing entirely, dealt with very well by Toole's research.

Maybe at some point in the future professional and commercial acoustic design will readily specific frequency-specific directivity for purpose-built loudspeakers. That definitely seems to be the direction we're heading in. But we are still in relatively low-precision times here and that is not yet the case.

 

[Kyle / MrHeeHo]

Great to see this was all resolved.

I'm excited to see what Kali has in store for the future, especially if they have something for those of us like myself who unfortunately have small listening spaces

 

[SDX-LV]

Great to see this was all resolved.

I'm excited to see what Kali has in store for the future, especially if they have something for those of us like myself who unfortunately have small listening spaces

perhaps not just small rooms but some MTM design that would play nicely as a center channel or any main channel - using the same coaxial midrange?

 

[spacevector]

Amir, did you redo your informal listening test with the non-broken sample?

 

[2020]

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.

You're a rarity then because I think most audiophiles correctly/incorrectly come to conclusions from their own experiences and then seek out similar things, but looking for a better version. It's a logical (and financial) thing to do, but it is limiting. You know, some people are enamored with very specific things, be it tweeter design (soft dome/hard dome/AMT/etc), materials used, one brand's proprietary features that nobody else offers or knows about (ie PMC's Advanced Transmission Line), coaxial design, extensive waveguides. If we could have it all, then more of us would be like you, but since we can't, we need to try to distill what we believe is our most valuable design aspect.

 

[amirm]

Amir, did you redo your informal listening test with the non-broken sample?

No, I haven't had a chance.

 

[2020]

I'm excited to see what Kali has in store for the future

Me too. In general I think the monitor market is ripe for some newer midrange and high end offerings. Kali Audio is working on a high end design but if we are to look at the past timeline, we are a minimum of 1 year from now till it's ready.

The IN-8 was first introduced NAMM 2019. This flew completely under the radar of most because publications don't take the time to investigate all booths deeply or dig, so those that do can get the scoop first. From that, it took till Nov 2019 for the product to become realized in retail fashion and "available". Of course, most people will not dive into a new product just like that so lets add at least 3 months for others to buy it and give opinions to be safe. They are working on a high end JBL 7 series like monitor that I cannot wait for, but I would expect that to be at NAMM 2021 introduction at the minimum.

Avantone is also working on midrange-highend monitors and we should be hype for them as well, as their last foray into this incorporated a lot of features (look at The Abbey manual) and was reported to be insanely detailed and revealing. There is no timeline on that however.

 

[maty]

My two cents: the key should be a better class D amp with the tweeter. Or class AB.

 

[q3cpma]

Me too. In general I think the monitor market is ripe for some newer midrange and high end offerings. Kali Audio is working on a high end design but if we are to look at the past timeline, we are a minimum of 1 year from now till it's ready.

The IN-8 was first introduced NAMM 2019. This flew completely under the radar of most because publications don't take the time to investigate all booths deeply or dig, so those that do can get the scoop first. From that, it took till Nov 2019 for the product to become realized in retail fashion and "available". Of course, most people will not dive into a new product just like that so lets add at least 3 months for others to buy it and give opinions to be safe. They are working on a high end JBL 7 series like monitor that I cannot wait for, but I would expect that to be at NAMM 2021 introduction at the minimum.

Avantone is also working on midrange-highend monitors and we should be hype for them as well, as their last foray into this incorporated a lot of features (look at The Abbey manual) and was reported to be insanely detailed and revealing. There is no timeline on that however.

What I think the market is in need for is something in the 500-1000€ range as it's completely barren compared to the rest. Neumann doesn't have a model here, Genelec only has its aging 8040B and new 8330A, JBL has its 705p plagued by a bad port, Adam's A8X that isn't on the same tier as those.
Maybe this no man's land is the gap between 3-way full range and subwoofer needing speakers?

 

[tktran303]

The woofer is a solid 3dB-6dB too quiet. The mid-tweeter SPL levels seems matched.

what’s wrong with this thing- woofer, mid, tweeter, or crossover. By design (suboptimal baffle step compensation) or by damage?

I feel a bit silly I didn’t spot the obvious damage visible on the woofer.
Too mesmerised by those graphs.

 

[Ilkless]

What I think the market is in need for is something in the 500-1000€ range as it's completely barren compared to the rest. Neumann doesn't have a model here, Genelec only has its aging 8040B and new 8330A, JBL has its 705p plagued by a bad port, Adam's A8X that isn't on the same tier as those.
Maybe this no man's land is the gap between 3-way full range and subwoofer needing speakers?

Exactly. That is the segment I'm shopping in for an active, and it's disheartening to see what the Kali IN-8 can pack for its price relative to these other speakers. If a decent 3-way coax can be done at the Kali price, why is still so much of a struggle to even find a decent 2-way non-coax at a higher price range? The only big fairly recent release was the HEDD Type 07. In ADAM's consumer survey they had last week, I wrote in very strong terms my disbelief that the A7X has not been revised. The T7V measures decently. The S2V exemplary for the design format. Surely they could muster something to split the difference.

 

[TimVG]

Kali IN-8 Listening window EQ correction. Please note the last 3 filters are in what would be considered below the transition frequency and would probably be neglected in any real world scenario. >5kHz was left alone as the irregularities are due to the acoustical interference effects. Original response included as a reference.

 

[SDX-LV]

Kali IN-8 Listening window EQ correction. Please note the last 3 filters are in what would be considered below the transition frequency and would probably be neglected in any real world scenario. >5kHz was left alone as the irregularities are due to the acoustical interference effects. Original response included as a reference.

Would love to hear a comment from @Charles Sprinkle if this sort of fine-tuning is a good idea? If we assume there were no artifacts in the measurements and unit-to-unit variation is much lower than the correction - it does look great.

Also I am still struggling to find a good pre-processor to upgrade to that could run such parametric filters in a surround setup. Ideally under 1000USD, with HDMI 2.1 compatible processor for 7 or more channels and multi subwoofer support (I am allowed to dream?)

 

[thewas]

Here are is also a minimalistic 6 PEQ filter that considers both direct on axis sound, early reflections and the estimated in-room response (lower plots are with EQ:

Filter  1: ON  PK       Fc   247.0 Hz  Gain  -1.10 dB  Q  4.300
Filter  2: ON  PK       Fc   332.0 Hz  Gain   1.50 dB  Q  5.000
Filter  3: ON  PK       Fc   872.0 Hz  Gain  -1.70 dB  Q  1.000
Filter  4: ON  PK       Fc    1908 Hz  Gain   1.10 dB  Q  5.000
Filter  5: ON  PK       Fc    6846 Hz  Gain  -1.30 dB  Q  4.000
Filter  6: ON  PK       Fc    9800 Hz  Gain   2.40 dB  Q  2.500

Personally I do the EQing fully though on moving micro method measurements as it also considers the modal region and problems, although above it the obtained EQ isn't very different to this one.

 

[QMuse]

Kali IN-8 Listening window EQ correction. Please note the last 3 filters are in what would be considered below the transition frequency and would probably be neglected in any real world scenario. >5kHz was left alone as the irregularities are due to the acoustical interference effects. Original response included as a reference.

Frendly word of advice, if I may..

When doing speaker's EQ based on spinorama you actually aim to linearize predicted in-room response graph, not the listening window graph.

Predicted In-Room response is weighted average in which Listening Window participates only with 12% it pays much more to take care to linearize Early Reflections and Sound Power responses as these two participate with 44%.

 

[TimVG]

Frendly word of advice, if I may..

When doing speaker's EQ based on spinorama you actually aim to linearize predicted in-room response graph, not the listening window graph.

Predicted In-Room response is weighted average in which Listening Window participates only with 12% it pays much more to take care to linearize Early Reflections and Sound Power responses as these two participate with 44%.


View attachment 52945

Personally I don't specifically aim for a certain in-room response. Although it is achieved naturally with loudspeakers that have good directivity properties when the LW is optimized, of course we have to consider the off-axis to a certain degree. If I would to add my 'rough' filters on the ER curve the result would be the following. Hence I'm quite sure the resulting in-room response would also be good. If I were to play around above 5kHz it could be improved further visually of course, but I'm a bit weary of doing so at the moment since the artifacts appear to result from acoustical interference and it may not work out for the better in reality.

 

[TimVG]

PS: If you follow Toole's logic, it makes sense to optimize the direct sound (LW) first because it is the first sound to arrive at our ears, and it is responsible for the timbre. In his words, if it is wrong, the rest doesn't matter anymore. In this case we can make both (direct & reflected sounds) look good. All the better.

 

[QMuse]

Personally I don't specifically aim for a certain in-room response. Although it is achieved naturally with loudspeakers that have good directivity properties when the LW is optimized, of course we have to consider the off-axis to a certain degree. If I would to add my 'rough' filters on the ER curve the result would be the following. Hence I'm quite sure the resulting in-room response would also be good. If I were to play around above 5kHz it could be improved further visually of course, but I'm a bit weary of doing so at the moment since the artifacts appear to result from acoustical interference and it may not work out for the better in reality.

I'm not sure you understood me. Speaker that would measure ideally well would have perfectly linear Predicted In-Room response curve tilted down a little. As Early Reflection and Power Sound curves influence Predicted In-Rooom response curve 3 times more than Listening window curve you should pay much more attention to get them to be linear than the Linear Response curve. This is not a question of how you do it or how I'm doing it, it is a question of pure mathematics.