Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[TimVG]

Predicted In-Room response IS (pseudo) anechoic data and both directivity indexes ARE factored in it with heavy weighting use of Early Reflections and Sound Power.

I find nothing in the thread you linked that contradicts with what @mitchco said. @thewas_ what do you think?

And carefully with qualifying @mitchco 's knowledge and experience as it seems to me you have much to learn before discussing things with him on an equal basis.

So by that reasoning we could EQ any loudspeaker operating within its limits to a predetermined target curve by using in room measurements and be done with it? Just to see if we are on the same page.

Also what if the reality doesn't coincide with the model above the transition frequency using relatively high resolution? EQ it smooth also?

 

[QMuse]

So by that reasoning we could EQ any loudspeaker operating within its limits to a predetermined target curve by using in room measurements and be done with it? Just to see if we are on the same page.

We are here discussing loudspeaker EQ based on Klippels pseudoanechoic measurement, not room EQ based on in-room measurement.

Also what if the reality doesn't coincide with the model above the transition frequency using relatively high resolution? EQ it smooth also?

Are you asking what if the in-room measurement doesn't coincide with the predicted in-room response generated by CEA-2034 (Klippel)?

Well, in most cases there will be some difference in the transition region (so up to say 700Hz) as room still affects the response there. In some cases there will also be some differences in HF response due to different wall absorbtion etc. It is up to each audiophille to choose room EQ strategy above transition freqeuncy. Personally I prefer mild corrections in the transitoin region and very mild corections above 700Hz.

 

[TimVG]

I'll ask again in another context:

Here we have the Revel Studio2 anechoic data - a highly rated loudspeaker. By looking at the curves we can see that there would be likely a dip in the in room response just shy of the 2kHz mark. By conforming this curve to a preset standard, would we not affect the direct sound, degrading the first sound to arrive at our ears? That is what Floyd Toole says, and I have no reason to doubt him.

 

[TimVG]

We are here discussing loudspeaker EQ based on Klippels pseudoanechoic measurement, not room EQ based on in-room measurement.

But that is what mitchco claims: "for the consumer to judge how a speaker will sound in the room it is all about the estimated or predicted in-room response"

And it is simply not true.**

**in that some very highly rated loudspeakers such as the Salon2, or in this case the Studio2 would not have a perfect predicted in-room response.

 

[QMuse]

But that is what mitchco claims: "for the consumer to judge how a speaker will sound in the room it is all about the estimated or predicted in-room response"

And it is simply not true.

His claim is exactly what is stated in the CEA-2034, and he quoted it for you. If you are not willing to accept CEA-2034 standard that is completely up to you, but in that case that is your personal opinion, not a scientifically proven fact.

 

[q3cpma]

His claim is exactly what is stated in the CEA-2034, and he quoted it for you. If you are not willing to accept CEA-2034 standard that is completely up to you, but in that case that is your personal opinion, not a scientifically proven fact.

Does this predicted response include listening distance or the fact that human hearing isn't omnidirectional?

 

[TimVG]

His claim is exactly what is stated in the CEA-2034, and he quoted it for you. If you are not willing to accept CEA-2034 standard that is completely up to you, but in that case that is your personal opinion, not a scientifically proven fact.

But you don't seem to understand that while the prediction model works, it is merely a prediction of a steady state room curve. We do not hear that steady state room curve. Above the transition frequency, we primarily hear the direct sound, followed by -some- early reflections. Have you read Sound Reproduction by Floyd Toole?

 

[QMuse]

I'll ask again in another context:

Here we have the Revel Studio2 anechoic data - a highly rated loudspeaker. By looking at the curves we can see that there would be likely a dip in the in room response just shy of the 2kHz mark. By conforming this curve to a preset standard, would we not affect the direct sound, degrading the first sound to arrive at our ears? That is what Floyd Toole says, and I have no reason to doubt him.

Yes, judging from that spinorama graph there would likely be a small dip in the 1500-2200 Hz region, but what exactly is your point here?

I already told you our brain cannot distinguish direct sound from early reflections. IIRC whatever arrives within 30ms our brain treats as direct sound, not like a reflection. Floyde wrote about that in his papers.

 

[TimVG]

Yes, judging from that spinorama graph there would likely be a small dip in the 1500-2200 Hz region, but what exactly is your point here?

I already told you our brain cannot distinguish direct sound from early reflections. IIRC whatever arrives within 30ms our brain treats as direct sound, not like a reflection. Floyde wrote about that in his papers.

Our brain can and does do that actually. To quote Toole:

"Chapter 6 shows that in normal rooms the first lateral reflections in rectangular rooms of normal listening and control room dimensions are above the threshold of audibility. They can be heard, but are below the threshold at which the precedence effect breaks down, so there is still a single localized image"

 

[QMuse]

But you don't seem to understand that while the prediction model works, it is merely a prediction of a steady state room curve.

It is not "merely a prediction" - it is a prediciton that has been verified to predict correctly.

We do not hear that steady state room curve. Above the transition frequency, we primarily hear the direct sound, followed by -some- early reflections.

Huh, that obsession with direct sound of yours.. I already explained that many times.

Have you read Sound Reproduction by Floyd Toole?

Sure. And at least another 15 papers written by him.

 

[TimVG]

It is not "merely a prediction" - it is a prediciton that has been verified to predict correctly.



Huh, that obsession with direct sound of yours.. I already explained that many times.



Sure. And at least another 15 papers written by him.

Then I suppose this direct quote from the book is BS?

 

[QMuse]

Our brain can and does do that actually. To quote Toole:

"Chapter 6 shows that in normal rooms the first lateral reflections in rectangular rooms of normal listening and control room dimensions are above the threshold of audibility. They can be heard, but are below the threshold at which the precedence effect breaks down, so there is still a single localized image"

Think again about that 2nd sentence, it is telling you that our brain doesn't distinguish between direct sound and early reflections.

 

[TimVG]

Think again about that 2nd sentence, it is telling you that our brain doesn't distinguish between direct sound and early reflections.

There is a single image, but our brain distinguishes the timbral element of direct and reflected sounds, again:

 

[QMuse]

Then I suppose this direct quote from the book is BS?

View attachment 52973

What you are calling direct sound is on-axis CEA-2034 measurement, and that one is practically irrelevant in our perception of loudspeaker quality. Listening window response matters much more although from these anechioc measurements it is pretty obvious that designers of modern speakers are aiming for a compromise between linear listening window curve and early reflection curve, even if it has to be done on account of linearity of on-axis response.

 

[TimVG]

I would consider the LW as the primary measure of direct sound of course. There is no debate there.

 

[QMuse]

I would consider the LW as the primary measure of direct sound of course. There is no debate there.

How so? Do you know how LW is calculated? Considering responses at all the angles it takes into acccount it is quite far from your perception of a direct sound reaching your ears directly from the speakers in a laser beam like fashion.

 

[TimVG]

I know very well what the LW encompasses. Don't be a cynical jackass about it.
PS: Great job moving the argument away from the actual quote from the book. In any case, I'm done arguing here.

 

[Jon AA]

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

I have to disagree as well. That's the opposite of Toole's teachings--you're basically making the same mistake he (and many others, such as Paul Hales) rant about "automated room EQ" making--you're just doing it manually. It would be a lot less work to just let the auto EQ correct to a room curve. We wouldn't need anechoic data at all.

Consider, a speaker with relatively narrow controlled directivity that measures flat on axis. At the point the speaker directivity becomes controlled, be it 500 or 2000 Hz, there will be a drop in the in-room response. Correcting that upward puts a step filter increasing the on-axis response above that level which will throw off the tonal balance of the direct sound.

Consider a speaker with a directivity mismatch at the crossover, also flat on axis. A dip will appear off axis and appear in the in-room response. Correcting that will put a large bump in the on-axis direct sound, likely making the speaker sound worse.

Those are the very reasons Toole and others say auto room EQ can often make things worse and why you need anechoic data of the speaker to determine what needs to be fixed and what doesn't.

Now if there's a sharp bump or dip on axis or even in the LW that disappears off axis, you may want to leave that. That would be an informed choice (and somewhat of a compromise), and not a general rule.

 

[QMuse]

I know very well what the LW encompasses. Don't be a cynical jackass about it.

Did I call you a "cynical jackass" when you asked me if I read Toole's book? As you can't lead civilised conversation I will leave you to your beliefs.

 

[TimVG]

Did I call you a "cynical jackass" when you asked me if I read Toole's book? As you can't lead civilised conversation I will leave you to your beliefs.

No need to tell me. I know I can be one. Again, I get caught up in these things. We each have a right to an opinion, apologies. Mine is related to the direct quote embedded above that not eveything gets combined within the first 20 or so ms after the direct sound. If you feel different, then that's your right.