Kali LP-6 Review: Studio Monitor

[Maiky76]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

Some data for the LP8 is available here
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...orama-and-eq-design-inside.16689/#post-539358

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.18
With Sub: 7.06
Spinorama with no EQ:

• Too bad for the resonances in the 600 - 1500Hz range
• The directivity is excellent, good candidate for EQ
• Decent LF for the size without large boost in the 100-200Hz range, may be temperature dependent.

View attachment 96583
Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height
Horizontally, almost perfect 0 t0 +/-20deg maybe toe-in the speakers by 10deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location could help dosing the reflexions .
View attachment 96592
View attachment 96584
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.
• It would be great if we had some measurements of the built in controls, they may make additional EQ redundant as we saw with the JBL 308p mkII

View attachment 96579

Score EQ LW: 5.72
with sub: 7.66
Score EQ Score: 6.24
with sub: 8.12

Kali LP6 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
November302020-180916

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 45.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.01
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 126 Hz Gain -0.79 dB Q 3.48
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 326 Hz Gain -0.84 dB Q 6.08
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 991 Hz Gain -3.14 dB Q 13.5
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1759 Hz Gain -2.1 dB Q 3.85
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2302 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 4.73
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 14756 Hz Gain -1.11 dB Q 6.59

Kali LP6 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
November302020-175738

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 45.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.01
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 130 Hz Gain -0.71 dB Q 2.42
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 331 Hz Gain -1.06 dB Q 3.7
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 983 Hz Gain -4.4 dB Q 14.3
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 1777 Hz Gain -2.6 dB Q 2.85
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 2448 Hz Gain -1.62 dB Q 7.22
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 3533 Hz Gain -0.95 dB Q 5.88
Filter 8: ON PK Fc 6973 Hz Gain -1.3 dB Q 0.84
Filter 9: ON PK Fc 14813 Hz Gain -2.26 dB Q 4.85

Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 96580
Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 96582
Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 96577
Regression - Tonal
View attachment 96578
Radar no EQ vs EQ score not night and day
View attachment 96581
The rest of the plots are attached.

At 300USD/pair including the amps go find something better...

@STRIX

Here are the EQ for the LP6 v2 based on Erin's data (credits to him https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-6v2/ ).
Take them with a pinch of salt as I scanned the data so the scores, although good approximations, are not directly comparable with the others, v1's included.

Remarks:

• TBH I don't think these require EQ. The EQ applied could fall under typical unit-to-unit variations and differences in measurement conditions but
  you're of course free to give EQ a try if you'd like.
• Based on my metric and algorithm, the "score EQ" ends up being essentially the stock tuning, just with some light EQ (smoothing) applied to the curve.
  Coincidence? I doubt it...
• Interestingly, it seems the V2 is tuned more in line with the score/PIR target, whereas the V1 leaned more toward LW flatness.
  Whether this reflects well on my algorithm capabilities or on their tuning decisions, I’ll leave that for others to judge.

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.9
With Sub: 8.0

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Better than V1
• Great design / engineering
• Great price

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

The first BQ (removing the warmth around 136Hz) could be omitted

Score EQ LW: 6.2
with sub: 8.4

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.6

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
July152025-165934

Preamp: -2.20 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.2 Hz Gain -0.70 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 313.4 Hz Gain 1.06 dB Q 2.89
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1347.7 Hz Gain -1.34 dB Q 5.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2291.2 Hz Gain 1.88 dB Q 3.08
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10138.8 Hz Gain 1.57 dB Q 0.50
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 17801.7 Hz Gain -1.67 dB Q 4.98

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
July152025-173029

Preamp: -1.40 dB 

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.7 Hz Gain -0.92 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 312.7 Hz Gain 1.04 dB Q 4.99
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1351.4 Hz Gain -1.91 dB Q 4.05
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2223.8 Hz Gain 1.43 dB Q 3.37
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 17904.2 Hz Gain -2.16 dB Q 4.67

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
No improvements probably

 

[STRIX]

@STRIX

Here are the EQ for the LP6 v2 based on Erin's data (credits to him https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-6v2/ ).
Take them with a pinch of salt as I scanned the data so the scores, although good approximations, are not directly comparable with the others, v1's included.

Remarks:

• TBH I don't think these require EQ. The EQ applied could fall under typical unit-to-unit variations and differences in measurement conditions but
  you're of course free to give EQ a try if you'd like.
• Based on my metric and algorithm, the "score EQ" ends up being essentially the stock tuning, just with some light EQ (smoothing) applied to the curve.
  Coincidence? I doubt it...
• Interestingly, it seems the V2 is tuned more in line with the score/PIR target, whereas the V1 leaned more toward LW flatness.
  Whether this reflects well on my algorithm capabilities or on their tuning decisions, I’ll leave that for others to judge.

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.9
With Sub: 8.0

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Better than V1
• Great design / engineering
• Great price

View attachment 463350
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

The first BQ (removing the warmth around 136Hz) could be omitted

Score EQ LW: 6.2
with sub: 8.4

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.6

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
July152025-165934

Preamp: -2.20 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.2 Hz Gain -0.70 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 313.4 Hz Gain 1.06 dB Q 2.89
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1347.7 Hz Gain -1.34 dB Q 5.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2291.2 Hz Gain 1.88 dB Q 3.08
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10138.8 Hz Gain 1.57 dB Q 0.50
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 17801.7 Hz Gain -1.67 dB Q 4.98

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
July152025-173029

Preamp: -1.40 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.7 Hz Gain -0.92 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 312.7 Hz Gain 1.04 dB Q 4.99
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1351.4 Hz Gain -1.91 dB Q 4.05
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2223.8 Hz Gain 1.43 dB Q 3.37
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 17904.2 Hz Gain -2.16 dB Q 4.67

View attachment 463356
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 463351

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 463355

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 463354

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 463353

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
No improvements probably
View attachment 463352

Thanks for your work!!! I will try it on my lp6.

 

[STRIX]

@STRIX

Here are the EQ for the LP6 v2 based on Erin's data (credits to him https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-6v2/ ).
Take them with a pinch of salt as I scanned the data so the scores, although good approximations, are not directly comparable with the others, v1's included.

Remarks:

• TBH I don't think these require EQ. The EQ applied could fall under typical unit-to-unit variations and differences in measurement conditions but
  you're of course free to give EQ a try if you'd like.
• Based on my metric and algorithm, the "score EQ" ends up being essentially the stock tuning, just with some light EQ (smoothing) applied to the curve.
  Coincidence? I doubt it...
• Interestingly, it seems the V2 is tuned more in line with the score/PIR target, whereas the V1 leaned more toward LW flatness.
  Whether this reflects well on my algorithm capabilities or on their tuning decisions, I’ll leave that for others to judge.

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.9
With Sub: 8.0

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Better than V1
• Great design / engineering
• Great price

View attachment 463350
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

The first BQ (removing the warmth around 136Hz) could be omitted

Score EQ LW: 6.2
with sub: 8.4

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.6

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
July152025-165934

Preamp: -2.20 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.2 Hz Gain -0.70 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 313.4 Hz Gain 1.06 dB Q 2.89
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1347.7 Hz Gain -1.34 dB Q 5.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2291.2 Hz Gain 1.88 dB Q 3.08
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10138.8 Hz Gain 1.57 dB Q 0.50
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 17801.7 Hz Gain -1.67 dB Q 4.98

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
July152025-173029

Preamp: -1.40 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.7 Hz Gain -0.92 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 312.7 Hz Gain 1.04 dB Q 4.99
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1351.4 Hz Gain -1.91 dB Q 4.05
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2223.8 Hz Gain 1.43 dB Q 3.37
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 17904.2 Hz Gain -2.16 dB Q 4.67

View attachment 463356
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 463351

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 463355

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 463354

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 463353

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
No improvements probably
View attachment 463352

Hi, I have tested the EQ. To be honest, there are almost no improvement to the DSP speaker like LP6-v2. Maybe just have a little style change. My room is too small to make a lot more bass, so i considering to change my room rather than use EQ.

 

[cnmlgfly]

@STRIX

Here are the EQ for the LP6 v2 based on Erin's data (credits to him https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/kali_lp-6v2/ ).
Take them with a pinch of salt as I scanned the data so the scores, although good approximations, are not directly comparable with the others, v1's included.

Remarks:

• TBH I don't think these require EQ. The EQ applied could fall under typical unit-to-unit variations and differences in measurement conditions but
  you're of course free to give EQ a try if you'd like.
• Based on my metric and algorithm, the "score EQ" ends up being essentially the stock tuning, just with some light EQ (smoothing) applied to the curve.
  Coincidence? I doubt it...
• Interestingly, it seems the V2 is tuned more in line with the score/PIR target, whereas the V1 leaned more toward LW flatness.
  Whether this reflects well on my algorithm capabilities or on their tuning decisions, I’ll leave that for others to judge.

Here is my take on the EQ.
Please report your findings, positive or negative!

For the score rational your journey starts here
Explanation for the sub score
The following EQs are “anechoic” EQs to get the speaker right before room integration.
If you able to implement these EQs you must add EQ at LF for room integration, that is usually not optional… see hints there.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 5.9
With Sub: 8.0

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Better than V1
• Great design / engineering
• Great price

View attachment 463350
EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

The first BQ (removing the warmth around 136Hz) could be omitted

Score EQ LW: 6.2
with sub: 8.4

Score EQ Score: 6.5
with sub: 8.6

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
July152025-165934

Preamp: -2.20 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.2 Hz Gain -0.70 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 313.4 Hz Gain 1.06 dB Q 2.89
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1347.7 Hz Gain -1.34 dB Q 5.00
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2291.2 Hz Gain 1.88 dB Q 3.08
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 10138.8 Hz Gain 1.57 dB Q 0.50
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 17801.7 Hz Gain -1.67 dB Q 4.98

Kali LP6v2 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
July152025-173029

Preamp: -1.40 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 136.7 Hz Gain -0.92 dB Q 1.40
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 312.7 Hz Gain 1.04 dB Q 4.99
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 1351.4 Hz Gain -1.91 dB Q 4.05
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2223.8 Hz Gain 1.43 dB Q 3.37
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 17904.2 Hz Gain -2.16 dB Q 4.67

View attachment 463356
Spinorama EQ LW
View attachment 463351

Spinorama EQ Score
View attachment 463355

Zoom PIR-LW-ON
View attachment 463354

Regression - Tonal
View attachment 463353

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
No improvements probably
View attachment 463352

Hello, I am a mixing engineer from China, and I have some questions to discuss with you. In your Score EQ, there is approximately a 1dB attenuation at 20kHz on the frequency response curve. I used the exact same EQ, but the attenuation at 20kHz is only 0.1dB. Could you please check if there is an error in your EQ and let me know the correct one? Thank you.

 

[Maiky76]

Hello, I am a mixing engineer from China, and I have some questions to discuss with you. In your Score EQ, there is approximately a 1dB attenuation at 20kHz on the frequency response curve. I used the exact same EQ, but the attenuation at 20kHz is only 0.1dB. Could you please check if there is an error in your EQ and let me know the correct one? Thank you.

Are you referring to the speaker response or the filter response?
If speaker, did you measure the speaker yourself? that would explain a lot...

My EQ is correct and checked against multiple HW DSPs.
There is no standard definition for Biquad. Are you sure your DSP engine is using the same definition for Biquads?
Sony and Ti, Behringer etc. don't define their biquad the same way. ADI is identical except for the High/LowShelves.
Even SW EQ in DAW may not use the same definition.

What sampling rate are you using?
It can have a significant influence at HF since is the vast majorities of cases the gain must be 0dB at the Nyquist frequency.

 

[cnmlgfly]

Are you referring to the speaker response or the filter response?
If speaker, did you measure the speaker yourself? that would explain a lot...

My EQ is correct and checked against multiple HW DSPs.
There is no standard definition for Biquad. Are you sure your DSP engine is using the same definition for Biquads?
Sony and Ti, Behringer etc. don't define their biquad the same way. ADI is identical except for the High/LowShelves.
Even SW EQ in DAW may not use the same definition.

What sampling rate are you using?
It can have a significant influence at HF since is the vast majorities of cases the gain must be at the Nyquist frequency.

Hello, my friend. I've identified the cause of the issue. The problem is that my system operates at 24-bit 48kHz, while your EQ is set to 96kHz. Could you please help me regenerate both a Score EQ and a LW EQ for the LP6V2 that are compatible with 24-bit 48kHz? This would be an immense help to me. Thank you very much.

 

[Maiky76]

Hello, my friend. I've identified the cause of the issue. The problem is that my system operates at 24-bit 48kHz, while your EQ is set to 96kHz. Could you please help me regenerate both a Score EQ and a LW EQ for the LP6V2 that are compatible with 24-bit 48kHz? This would be an immense help to me. Thank you very much.
View attachment 492362

EQ score: change
17904.17, -2.16, 4.67
change to
17904.17, -2.16, 2.07...
Basically identical up to 18kHz and less than 0.4dB error max up to 20k

EQ LW:
17801.71, -1.67, 4.98...
change to
17801.71, -1.17, 3.51...
less than 0.2dB error max up to 20k

 

[cnmlgfly]

EQ score: change
17904.17, -2.16, 4.67
change to
17904.17, -2.16, 2.07...
Basically identical up to 18kHz and less than 0.4dB error max up to 20k

EQ LW:
17801.71, -1.67, 4.98...
change to
17801.71, -1.17, 3.51...
less than 0.2dB error max up to 20k

Heartfelt thanks, my friend. Sending you warm wishes from China.