Kali Audio IN-8 Studio Monitor Review

[amirm]

Would be preferable if they pay you to buy the speakers from a retailer so we eliminate golden samples.

That's a good suggestion. Just ordered. Sometimes you guys are much smarter than me. Sometimes!

 

[DDF]

Sure. But if the unit that Kali will send would measure better than first unit it will be pretty clear that QA sucks.

Or its damaged

 

[Krunok]

Or its damaged

Damaged speaker would develop distortion, I'm sure it would be visible from the measurements.

 

[Sancus]

This is illogical. How could you possibly get that from my statement, which is make sure the product isn't damaged and that your test set up is AOK before publishing a negative review?

Because you seem really intent on criticizing Amir's review for its negativity, even calling it unethical, when there is an entire industry of audio reviewers just constantly publishing nonsense reviews as a pure marketing engine out there. They do 100x more harm than Amir could ever hope to.

Amir measured and reviewed a product; double and triple checking every sample he receives with the manufacturer before publication isn't his responsibility.

It's absolutely good and acceptable that Kali showed up and said that there is something wrong with it, and that's what I would expect, but calling Amir's initial review unethical is frankly quite ridiculous.

 

[edechamps]

What I don't like about this is that a supplier could send cherry picked samples. Of course some will, its naive to think otherwise.

Yeah, that's why Rtings never accepts manufacturers samples, even in this case - they go out and buy another unit off the shelf themselves.

Personally, I'm fine with @amirm measuring manufacturer-provided samples (it's better than nothing, after all), as long as it's made very clear in the review where the unit comes from so that everyone knows where to stand. And of course, if there are doubts about it being cherry-picked, it would be nice to do the measurements again on another, off-the-shelf unit.

 

[DDF]

... or just look at the panther "icon" I did that for quite a while here myself. Maybe I shouldn't advertise that

I figure the analytical methodology is what it is; as long as it is consistent, and internally consistent, it can and should yield useful information.
(I'll readily admit to this being my opinion, i.e., I don't intend to state it as immutable fact).

Love the first half, not second. Internal consistency isn't sufficient, test results have to be right. They are compared not only internally but to external results. Someone visiting would look at a wonky results and not say, "all other results are wonky, so this must be OK".

 

[DDF]

Damaged speaker would develop distortion, I'm sure it would be visible from the measurements.

Not a crossover damage, may not distort but could affect the outcome

 

[Krunok]

Not a crossover damage, may not distort but could affect the outcome

From my experience damage in XO element would seriously affect FR over wide frequency range.

 

[Thomas savage]

Speaker got measured , results displeased manufacturer. Efforts are being made by all parties to further investigate and see what can be learned by all involved. The journey is being documented here in public . We can learn together.

The main thing is the data and the industry starting to recognise the importance of real information on performance. That's happening , right here right now.

Some of the back seat drivers might want to consider sitting upfront.

 

[PierreV]

So, are you saying that the vast majority of audio media reviews are unethical, or that the ethical responsibility only shows up when you're posting a negative review?

In my view, reviewers have a much greater ethical responsibility when they are recommending something than when they are not, but it seems like the opposite view is taken in the systematically broken audio industry.

You raise an interesting point. @DDF comments seem totally fair, logical and reasonable. Yet, in the context of the audio industry and its constant stream of positive bias, bad reviews are sooo refreshing. If one googles a bit, one can find customer's some measurements of the Kali in question and they don't seem to disagree with the data Amir has posted.

The "something must be broken" argument is getting a bit old as well. Broken as an explanation for not delivering performance doesn't seem to happen that often anymore in other industries/consumer products categories...

 

[Thomas_A]

From my experience damage in XO element would seriously affect FR over wide frequency range.

Could be a fault with components regulated by the dip switches and lowers the level below 300 Hz.

 

[amirm]

2. Vendors should have a right to comment before posting if results look very amiss and there is still some lingering doubt in the test set up (as expressed by Amir himself). A number of follow on posts are trying to smooth this point over in fear of losing out on Amir's gracious testing, and its not commendable.

I agree with you if a manufacturer gave me the gear to test. If a member gave me something to test, no. If you are buying a used car and bring a mechanic to check it out, you expect him to run his concerns with the car manufacturer before he tells you if you should or should not buy something? That is the service I provide. It is working for us, the consumers, with electronics. Why do you ask that I do different for speakers?

The only answer would be that you trust the manufacturer data more than you trust mine. Keep in mind that only a fraction of the speakers I test will have anechoic or NFS testing data from manufacturer. In that case, what exactly do you think the manufacturer can offer in protest?

I think you are basing your comments on publishing format where manufacturers loan gear to magazine. They check with manufacturer because they have to keep good relations as best as they can for make a business model work. I have no business model to work. I bought this expensive system so that we have an objective and fact filled reference to make purchase decision. Occasionally we may get it wrong in which case I expect the manufacturer reach out to investigate. If they don't then they would have answered me to start anyway.

Net, net, put the hat of a consumer on. Not manufacturer.

 

[DDF]

Because you seem really intent on criticizing Amir's review for its negativity, even calling it unethical, when there is an entire industry of audio reviewers just constantly publishing nonsense reviews as a pure marketing engine out there. They do 100x more harm than Amir could ever hope to.

Amir measured and reviewed a product; double and triple checking every sample he receives with the manufacturer before publication isn't his responsibility.

It's absolutely good and acceptable that Kali showed up and said that there is something wrong with it, and that's what I would expect, but calling Amir's initial review unethical is frankly quite ridiculous.

If the the unit isn't damaged and the measurement method is high confidence , then the review is fair.
Perhaps we just have different views of the possible repercussions of an errant highly negative review, and the responsibility that entails.

Having nonsense reviews elsewhere doesn't justify publishing damnation if its not yet warranted.
To say "they're worse so this is OK" is not an acceptable justification.
I do agree with you that false praise reviews are also highly damaging, but to the consumer. I've bought junk based on that myself, and I'm not happy about it. But the intent of ASR is to rise above that, isn't it?

 

[Krunok]

I agree with you if a manufacturer gave me the gear to test. If a member gave me something to test, no. If you are buying a used car and bring a mechanic to check it out, you expect him to run his concerns with the car manufacturer before he tells you if you should or should not buy something? That is the service I provide. It is working for us, the consumers, with electronics. Why do you ask that I do different for speakers?

The only answer would be that you trust the manufacturer data more than you trust mine. Keep in mind that only a fraction of the speakers I test will have anechoic or NFS testing data from manufacturer. In that case, what exactly do you think the manufacturer can offer in protest?

I think you are basing your comments on publishing format where manufacturers loan gear to magazine. They check with manufacturer because they have to keep good relations as best as they can for make a business model work. I have no business model to work. I bought this expensive system so that we have an objective and fact filled reference to make purchase decision. Occasionally we may get it wrong in which case I expect the manufacturer reach out to investigate. If they don't then they would have answered me to start anyway.

Net, net, put the hat of a consumer on. Not manufacturer.

I agree, but probably most of the folks here would sleep better if you can find a speaker with spinorama not measured by Klippel and compare it with your measurements as a final proof of accuracy. Does Harman have such measurements?

 

[tomtoo]

I'm going off his own expressed reservations as well





Wow, strongly disagree. I think its an ethical responsibility. Readers will come here and read just the first page, then take it out of context if it turns out the unit was damaged in shipping, or there are still lingering issues with the test set up. It's important for the credibility of the site and to5 not unfairly tar suppliers reputations by not being cavalier about this

But it's not only the measurements. @amirm was unhappy with the sound too. Now saying a speaker sounds like a big clockradio after you compared it to a jbl 305 there has to be something or? If it would be only the measurements you could argue maybe there is a glitch in the measurements. But so there has also to be a glitch in @Armir's listening habits. So two glitches on @Armis side or just one glitch in this specific speaker? Let's see.

 

[DDF]

Speaker got measured , results displeased manufacturer. Efforts are being made by all parties to further investigate and see what can be learned by all involved. The journey is being documented here in public . We can learn together.

The main thing is the data and the industry starting to recognise the importance of real information on performance. That's happening , right here right now.

Some of the back seat drivers might want to consider sitting upfront.

The new unit will tell allot about possible damage to the first unit.
I think it would be a great help to present calibration results validating the test set up and let the technical people here review it.
I'd be a happy participant sitting up front as a reviewer of that. When is science ever above pier review? They would call that religion.

 

[DDF]

But it's not only the measurements. @amirm was unhappy with the sound too. Now saying a speaker sounds like a big clockradio after you compared it to a jbl 305 there has to be something or? If it would be only the measurements you could argue maybe there is a glitch in the measurements. But so there has also to be a glitch in @Armir's listening habits. So two glitches on @Armis side or just one glitch in this specific speaker? Let's see.

Which could point to damage as well. Or confirmation bias if the test results are accurate. No one is above confirmation bias if having seen the test results first

 

[amirm]

I'm breaking my concerns into 2 parts:
1. Hmm, I come back to it: where can we see the data validating the test results are as expected and accurately representing anechoic results? Did I miss it? If so, I'd be very happy to be proven wrong on that point.

Why are you starting with the position of doubt there? The system is made by a German company who is the premier supplier of speaker testing and research. Much of what the system is doing is internal and not subject to setup. The math is the math and is automatically computed and sanity checked by the system itself. And as I have explained, I have tested my results against their sample with high correlation.

Now personally I am trying to be super conservative and out of abundance of caution, am willing to keep testing to verify the results. But you all should not be so quick to say, "it is a new system so must not be working well." This is not a system I cooked up for testing. Once I give it some simple parameters to not hit the speaker, it runs by itself.

Of note, I did a lot of due diligence before purchasing this system. I asked about it from companies who have anechoic chambers and they verify that the system produced similar results. Here is one such comparison provided by the Klippel distributor/support:

I have blacked out the name of the client that provided the anechoic chamber measurements in red. The black curve is in from Klippel NFS. As frequencies get lower, it actually produces a more accurate results due to anechoic chamber not being reflection-free there.

Above 100 Hz, matching is essentially perfect.

So while I start with the position of still needing confirmation data, it is unwise for you all to assume this is some random data that could easily be proven to be wrong.

 

[tomtoo]

Which could point to damage as well. Or confirmation bias if the test results are accurate. No one is above confirmation bias if having seen the test results first

Shure it could be confirmation bias mixed with some hard words. I dont know.

 

[amirm]

Which could point to damage as well. Or confirmation bias if the test results are accurate. No one is above confirmation bias if having seen the test results first

Confirmation of what? As I said in the review, I started thinking the much larger and imposing Kali would provide stiff competition to JBL. It did not. So I then asked my wife to listen for exactly the reason you are posting. She didn't know one from the other.

Now, you could say these are not blind controlled test. Fine. Where is the blind controlled test to dispute them?

I have painted what is a high confidence picture. It is not a guaranteed result as there can still be explanations. But as I just wrote, it is unwise to go all the way to the other extreme and assume all of this must be wrong unless proven otherwise.