Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[richard12511]

Nice. I wonder if that rising response above 15k is another sample to sample variation, or some sort of measurement fluke. I was looking for a cheap pair of speakers to replace the 305's on my electronic drum kit. Hopefully Kali can get their QC straightened out for v2, and perhaps address the diffraction issue causing the dip in the midrange that Amir measured. The reported hiss won't bother me while I'm wailing away at 95dB.

What about the 308p? It shows far better performance than this speaker, and it’s half the price on sale.

 

[Colonel7]

Think they're discussing the LP-8 now and not the IN-8. LP-8 is $199 each

 

[Xyrium]

What about the 308p? It shows far better performance than this speaker, and it’s half the price on sale.

Though I was considering the IN8, the 308 was also on the docket for consideration. However, right now, I have them connected to 305's, and the sound isn't right. The timbre of the acoustic sounds is muffled. A switch to headphones reveals this immediately. So, I was slightly concerned with using another 3 series product for this purpose.

I had an old Roland kit connected to a pair of cheap Behringer 2031A's, and it sounded very good. Perhaps I'm just overloading that tiny woofer on the 305, even though I don't see it, and my gain staging is set up pretty darned well.

The 308's are definitely contenders though! Thanks!

 

[maverickronin]

What about the 308p? It shows far better performance than this speaker, and it’s half the price on sale.

The 308 has a smoother on axis FR than the IN-8, but looking at the distortion numbers the IN-8 will go a lot louder while staying clean. The wide vertical dispersion can be pretty useful too, depending on your usage.

 

[thewas]

The 308 has a smoother on axis FR than the IN-8, but looking at the distortion numbers the IN-8 will go a lot louder while staying clean. The wide vertical dispersion can be pretty useful too, depending on your usage.

Also what HD measurements don't show is the much more significant difference in IMD between a 2-way and 3-way driver.

 

[tifune]

By chance has anyone found the input impedance of the IN-8? Balanced or unbalanced is fine, mostly just a curiosity. I see input sensitivity is 94dB but I'm not sure there's a way to directly convert that

 

[magic44ken]

Thats what I actually did buying and EQing both my Kali IN-8 and KEF LS50.

How is the clarity and micro detail between this two monitors? Is the IN-8 come close?

 

[Frank Dernie]

I found it a surprising result as well, I'll admit as much. In fact I'd rather buy the lesser rated IN-8 depicted here than the Harbeth M30. As both of our filtersets have shown, it can be EQ'd to provide an extremely neutral LW as well as textbook in-room curve. I doubt the same can be said of M30 which has a directivity issue.

I am intrigued.
Do you think the work done on cone materials, which is mainly to reduce colouration from breakup on the various polypropylene (I think) derived plastic cones developed from the 1970s original search for something less coloured and more consistent than doped paper, was pointless?
After all, this is a raison d'etre of Harbeth who have been developing less and less coloured cones over the decades (though not going for full pistonic solutions like KEF eventually did).
If EQ can actually compensate for relatively high cone colouration (I am skeptical, personally) it makes all that research obsolete.
I can see that directivity is important in real rooms but is it now of no consequence to have an accurate low colouration driver (which is probably very expensive) as the basis for a speaker any more?
The only demo of the benefits of DSP compensation and EQ of a speaker was done using top quality drivers so it would be interesting to know if good results could have been achieved using cheap ones.

 

[thewas]

How is the clarity and micro detail between this two monitors? Is the IN-8 come close?

Due to the 8-10 kHz on axis dip of the IN-8 I had the feeling of less clarity and details.

 

[thewas]

I am intrigued.
Do you think the work done on cone materials, which is mainly to reduce colouration from breakup on the various polypropylene (I think) derived plastic cones developed from the 1970s original search for something less coloured and more consistent than doped paper, was pointless?
After all, this is a raison d'etre of Harbeth who have been developing less and less coloured cones over the decades (though not going for full pistonic solutions like KEF eventually did).
If EQ can actually compensate for relatively high cone colouration (I am skeptical, personally) it makes all that research obsolete.
I can see that directivity is important in real rooms but is it now of no consequence to have an accurate low colouration driver (which is probably very expensive) as the basis for a speaker any more?
The only demo of the benefits of DSP compensation and EQ of a speaker was done using top quality drivers so it would be interesting to know if good results could have been achieved using cheap ones.

I personally don't think at all that cone material research in reduction and control of break up modes was pointless as it was one of the most important issues and improvements in the decades of loudspeaker evolution and like you say cannot really be corrected with EQ or DSP. On the other hand though I have seen many really good paper (usually infused) drivers and personally somehow don't seem to like most polypropylene drivers but haven't also heard the Harbeth "Radial" material drivers in a long session either but from what I have read can imagine its quite good too. Funnily a decade ago I also used to be rather a fan of "soft" driver materials like PP or silk thinking they sound more natural while nowadays I tend to prefer rather hard material drivers like metal mixes, Be and metal ceramics, of course with a well designed cross over.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I personally don't think at all that cone material research in reduction and control of break up modes was pointless as it was one of the most important issues and improvements in the decades of loudspeaker evolution and like you say cannot really be corrected with EQ or DSP. On the other hand though I have seen many really good paper (usually infused) drivers and personally somehow don't seem to like most polypropylene drivers but haven't also heard the Harbeth "Radial" material drivers in a long session either but from what I have read can imagine its quite good too. Funnily a decade ago I also used to be rather a fan of "soft" driver materials like PP or silk thinking they sound more natural while nowadays I tend to prefer rather hard material drivers like metal mixes, Be and metal ceramics, of course with a well designed cross over.

I am sure pistonic drivers must be the most accurate but there is always the problem of effectively suppressing out of band resonance which is real and, in the materials which can be pistonic, huge due to very low internal damping.
IMO in most of the 2 ways that sound harsh it is inadequately suppressed (by the crossover) cone breakup of the main driver which is the likely cause, not the tweeter.

 

[TimVG]

I am intrigued.
Do you think the work done on cone materials, which is mainly to reduce colouration from breakup on the various polypropylene (I think) derived plastic cones developed from the 1970s original search for something less coloured and more consistent than doped paper, was pointless?
After all, this is a raison d'etre of Harbeth who have been developing less and less coloured cones over the decades (though not going for full pistonic solutions like KEF eventually did).

I don't believe it is pointless, but in my mind it was a solution to a problem that could have been solved differently. If I'm correct they claimed (and I'm sure they have proof of it this somewhere) that polypropylene lacked a certain quality to be used in their applications (I believe they named it 'micro-detail'). What I see however is that nearly all Harbeth loudspeaker are feature a crossover quite high compared to similar loudspeakers from other manufacturers. I believe this is to partially compensate for the off-axis bloom that occurs when crossing a large-ish midrange driver to a high frequency driver (the smaller P3 was the last one to receive the cone upgrade). If they would have used anything else than polypropylene though, severe breakup would have been an issue in the bandwith requirements set by them. So, they developed their own material which works for the intended application. Could the same (or better) result have been achieved by using a waveguide on the high frequency driver, and crossing over somewhat lower? I believe so yes. But I'm sure the people at Harbeth will disagree.

If EQ can actually compensate for relatively high cone colouration (I am skeptical, personally) it makes all that research obsolete.
I can see that directivity is important in real rooms but is it now of no consequence to have an accurate low colouration driver (which is probably very expensive) as the basis for a speaker any more?
The only demo of the benefits of DSP compensation and EQ of a speaker was done using top quality drivers so it would be interesting to know if good results could have been achieved using cheap ones.

I'm sure there's more to a driver than just its frequency response, yet there's nothing DSP can do about anything else. But I'm sure a lot can be achieved with it nonetheless. The drivers in the Kii3 aren't particularly expensive, for example, yet they are well chosen for their intended application.

I have been able to use DSP to good effect in the past as well, It weren't cheap drivers however.

I purchased a pair of JBL 2213ND-1 some years ago. It had their differential drive technology, neodymium magnet and was overall very well built. I purchased them, used, for my own project (which you can see in my avatar). JBL used them in several 'Japan designated' products, and according to their own literature, crossed them quite high. Since I already owned the old alnico 123-A I figured performance would be very similar (and that one was extremely well behaved). I figured I would need to play with the filter a bit since drop-in replacements are very rare, but even after level matching there was something that simply sounded off. Taking some full-range measurements didn't show anything extremely odd. Measuring the 2213ND's seperately however showed nasty breakup at 2kHz, after the steep 24dB/octave filter it was barely noticeable in the previous measurements, but audible nonetheless. I was able to fix the problem through DSP.

For fun, I also attempted to flatten out a very cheap speaker featuring a 4 or 5" full-range driver - that was a big fail as expected


My conclusion: envision the intended application for the system, choose the drivers within that context, use DSP to integrate the whole - not to fix mechanical or acoustical deficiencies within the system.

 

[thewas]

I am sure pistonic drivers must be the most accurate but there is always the problem of effectively suppressing out of band resonance which is real and, in the materials which can be pistonic, huge due to very low internal damping.
IMO in most of the 2 ways that sound harsh it is inadequately suppressed (by the crossover) cone breakup of the main driver which is the likely cause, not the tweeter.

Yes, not enough suppressed break up of the mid(woofer) is one issue, on the other hand many soft dome tweeters break up relatively early (but smear it so it doesn't show up as a peak) which also is audible it also changes their directivity.

 

[magic44ken]

Due to the 8-10 kHz on axis dip of the IN-8 I had the feeling of less clarity and details.

I see. Maybe IN-8 v2 will improve this dip.

Let's hope the new Kali IN-5 have better integration without this common coaxial 8Hz to 10Hz dip. For my next coaxial speaker upgrade, I'm looking for similar or better detail and clarity than KL50. I just wish KEF do a 3 way active coaxial speaker.

 

[thewas]

I see. Let's hope the new Kali IN-5 have better integration without this common coaxial 8Hz to 10Hz dip. For my next coaxial speaker upgrade, I'm looking for similar or better detail and clarity than KL50.

Do you own the first gen LS50? If yes do you EQ them and how?

 

[magic44ken]

Do you own the first gen LS50? If yes do you EQ them and how?

I didn't purchase a pair but have listen several times in my friend's place. I love the benefits of coaxial and it have just enough detail to satisfy me. The timbre and tonality was good, but not enough tone color and the high sounds a little metallic sometimes on certain instruments.

My friend never got the chance to try out ay EQ Mod. He replaced with Focal Aeria after a year.

I will be interested if the new Kali In-5 can match the detail and clarity of the LS50.

I wish Thief make some coaxial monitor.

 

[Electric_Haggis]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Kali Audio IN-8, 3-way powered studio monitor (speaker). It was kindly purchased new by a member and drop shipped to me. The IN-8 costs US $399 each....

...The Kali IN-8 gave an imposing impression once put on my desk. It is huge for any kind of computer desk. As I noted, fit and finish is good so I thought for sure it would give some kind of competition to the JBL 305P Mark ii that I was comparing it to. Well, 2 seconds of listening showed that was not the case whatsoever. This thing sounds bad! All you hear is mid-range. All other frequencies are attenuated heavily. The highs are also grungy or strange. The 305P Mark ii sounded hugely more satisfying in comparison. Tons of detail where you could hear every instrument equally and properly. It had great warmth. It did justice to my audiophile track I was using.

To put it strongly, the Kali Audio IN-8 sounded like a big clock radio for those of you old enough to know what these things are! It had some good low bass that is not in JBL 305 but otherwise, it just sounds flat and uninteresting. The highs were bothering my ears as well.

As usual, I could be accused of bias so once again I dragged my wife in for a second opinion. Without saying a word she just about replicated my impressions. She commented on how she could better hear all the instruments. On a slight positive she did say some notes came across louder from IN-8 but quickly followed with that could be tiring.

It is easy to dismiss the graphs as showing "just a few dB" peaks. Visually they don't look that bad in grand scheme of things. Audibly however, those differences are quite a bit larger pointing and correctly predicting the listening impressions so far.

As I noted, hiss and buzzing is there just as well as JBL 305P Mark II so no issue there. I did not however hear either one over faint fan noise of my PC. In my prior testing of 305 P I have them in a different spot away from the computer so could hear the hiss better.

Conclusions
Hard to imagine if proper measurements or comparative listening tests were performed in the design of the Kali Audio IN-8. Their marketing story is all about "imaging" and such. Well, if you don't produce the right timbre, it doesn't matter what else you do. I can't emphasize enough how "lo-fi" this speaker sounds in use. I have no idea who all these people online are that are praising it for studio use. I shutter to think of what kind of mix they produce with a speaker like this.

Now I am wondering how the lower end 2-way models perform.

As it stands, pretty soon I have to upgrade the status of the JBL 305P Mark ii to top of the class with the golfing pink panther! It is remarkable how much higher in fidelity it is playing at relative to these other monitors.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

You honestly want to read another lame joke to be motivate to donate??? I hope not. Just go here and give me some money and get it done: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

While I appreciate your extensive testing, I am absolutely baffled by you & your wife’s listening appraisals, here.

Having just swapped mine in place of a pair of Presonus Sceptre S8s, and AB-compared through a mountain of wildly different test material, my results are as follows:

The Kali IN-8’s have a VERY similar sound and balance, but:

* Slightly superior imaging

* Noticably more detailed, transparent mids

* Marginally cleaner low-end



Downsides of the IN-8 are

* Less power (if that’s actually an issue for you)

* VERY slightly raised noise floor



Now, to be clear - The Presonus Sceptre is a phenomenal speaker, and retails for US$400 more per box.

I’ve AB-compared the Sceptre S8 to the Genelec 8341, by the way - and was just staggered how well the Sceptre held its own.

All the positive reviews of the IN-8 simply confirm what I’m hearing - That it punches WELL above its weight and is amazing value for money.

Eg:

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/kali-audio-in8

https://www.musictech.net/reviews/studio-recording-gear/kali-audio-in-8-monitors/

 

[TimVG]

While I appreciate your extensive testing, I am absolutely baffled by you & your wife’s listening appraisals, here.

Having just swapped mine in place of a pair of Presonus Sceptre S8s, and AB-compared through a mountain of wildly different test material, my results are as follows:

The Kali IN-8’s have a VERY similar sound and balance, but:

* Slightly superior imaging

* Noticably more detailed, transparent mids

* Marginally cleaner low-end



Downsides of the IN-8 are

* Less power (if that’s actually an issue for you)

* VERY slightly raised noise floor



Now, to be clear - The Presonus Sceptre is a phenomenal speaker, and retails for US$400 more per box.

I’ve AB-compared the Sceptre S8 to the Genelec 8341, by the way - and was just staggered how well the Sceptre held its own.

All the positive reviews of the IN-8 simply confirm what I’m hearing - That it punches WELL above its weight and is amazing value for money.

Eg:

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/kali-audio-in8

https://www.musictech.net/reviews/studio-recording-gear/kali-audio-in-8-monitors/

You may have missed the part where the listening test was performed with a (at that time unknown to Amir) faulty IN-8. Check the first post.

 

[Electric_Haggis]

You may have missed the part where the listening test was performed with a (at that time unknown to Amir) faulty IN-8. Check the first post.

Ah yes. Apologies.

Perhaps make that link a tad larger and more obvious, as it's very easy to scroll past and get the wrong conclusion!

 

[hardisj]

I'm going back through some of Amir's test to put his data in to a format I use just so I can better compare results. So, here's the results for this speaker.

Response linearity is -10.45*/+1.49 dB (80Hz to 16kHz).
*(the on-axis dip is a known consequence of the coaxial design)