Neumann KH80 DSP Monitor Measurements #3

[J-B]

It's a sentiment mirrored by just about everyone who has heard both, but yeah no shit guys of course my thoughts on the speakers are my opinion...

I have owned the KH120's (also with the KH805 sub) + KH310's and now still own the KH80's.
I much prefer the 80 over the 120, even though they indeed sound a bit smaller and don't go as low.
They sound more neutral and detailed and have a superior stereo image.
The 120's also sounded a bit muddy in the lower mids to me.

So please stop talking for "just about everyone".

 

[Deleted member 12642]

Ok baby

 

[redshift]

Seems that if you want to create a riot in the streets of ASR, all you have to do is show a non-ruler flat response of Neumann KH80 DSP professional monitor (speaker). Not knowing that, that is precisely what I did in my first review of KH80 DSP:

This was one of the earliest speakers I measured with the Klippel Near-field scanner. So naturally (or not), there were a lot of suspicions that it could actually recreate anechoic chamber measurements such as provided by the company:

After what seemed like a hundred pages and numerous attacks from every corner on validity of measurements including me not even being dressed right to measure speakers, I decided to test a second KH80 DSP monitor sample that another member was kind enough to offer. Was that the end of it? Of course not. As I said, if the measurements were not ruler flat, folks were not satisfied and this is what we had:

A sin was committed once more with the same dip around 80 Hz or so. Protests ensued and library books burned in streets with assertion that ASR measurements were flat wrong.

After some 25 pages of posts, folks seemed to forget about the fight and thread went dormant. Until... we heard back from Neumann which had asked Klippel Germany to measure an identical sample to what they had measured in anechoic chamber. While there were some differences between the two measurements, they were closer to each other than mine was. So folks went for the jugular this time. Nothing short of repenting on my part and accepting that my measurements were bogus would satisfy. The proof as they said, was right there.

When someone kindly suggested to fund the purchase of a third sample, I decided to not make it the community's problem and purchased that myself. Meanwhile @GuyLayfield reached out privately to me offering that we work together to see what is going on. Suspicion quickly went after the temperature difference for when I tested mine (in winter) and theirs (temperature controlled at 21 degrees C). Guy showed me a couple of useful slides from Klippel indicating changes in speaker parameters based on temperature:

View attachment 72743

View attachment 72744

Meanwhile my sample arrived and measured it. And what do you know, the low frequency dip had disappeard:

View attachment 72746

We still had to verify the problem was temperature. So Guy put a unit in the fridge overnight and then made measurements in the morning every 3 minutes as the speaker and its components warmed up. Here are his results, normalized to 21 degree C (black line):

View attachment 72747

As we see in the bottom blue line, lower temp most definitely created the dip around 80 Hz and gradually disappeared as the speaker warmed up. This then showed that my measurements are indeed accurate but were simply impacted by the lower temperature at the time.

Guy, knowing you all, wanted to still investigate some variations in measurements, some of which were also in Klippel Germany measurements. As it happens, they have measurements for each speaker sold and that included my sample. So we set out to try to reduces differences.

The guilty party here appeared to be the microphone protection cage that I use. This is a sensor shroud around the mic with micrswitches that detect any impact to any object (e.g. speaker) and instantly shuts down the system. It avoids banging an expensive microphone against an expensive speaker! Quite a while ago I had noticed that it was causing some comb filtering due to reflections. I experimented with absorption around it and got it under control. Still, we thought maybe it is at fault.

So I took out the cage and sadly as soon as you do that, all alignment of the system is gone. So while I was at it, I re-adjusted everything better than ever before, and even worked on optimizing the signal processing for least amount of error. Here is that measurement:

View attachment 72749

Yes, it looks the same! It is a bit flatter in bass but I think it has tiny variations here and there. According to Guy, we are now with +-0.6 dB from their measurements.

We don't know if the variations are because my measurements are wrong, or theirs. There is no gold reference here.

Frankly, I am sick of it at this point so told Guy that we are done and I should just post the results. People need to remember that every measurement system has variability and there is fair bit of that between anechoic chambers as well. For the purposes of evaluating speakers, what we have is more than good enough and far, far better than anything any reviewer is producing.

Importantly the moment the speaker is put in a room, nothing remotely flat comes out of it. So we need to keep that in perspective.

EDIT: by request, here is the newer beamwidth measurement I have been publishing for other speakers:

View attachment 74357
Conclusions
The main variable in our measurements not quite matching Neumann's was temperature. Whether this impacted just this speaker or the others, I don't know. If I get some time (yeh right), I will go back and remeasure a few of the other ones I still have and see what difference there may be. Come this winter, I will heat up the measurement room to get it closer to spring weather at least. Fortunately it never gets that cold here and hopefully we will find that other speakers are not affected as much.

Beside temperature, I have also fine tuned the system, using averaging for example to reduce noise level, deploying more optimal parameters to get the high frequencies right, etc. These have been in place for months so the bulk of what we have measured are accurate as they also enjoy warmer temperatures.

@MZKM has a new score for this speaker which he will post. New spin data is enclosed.

Be on notice that I am not measuring this speaker again so don't even think about asking me to do that. As it is, I have to now rip the system apart again and put the cage back on it and re-align it all.

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

As you can tell I am quite grumpy because of this ordeal. Fortunately it is not something where a few hundred dollars won't fix. So please donate what you can using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

Easy fix: let HomeKit report the room temperature to your DSP.

Where do I send the bill?

 

[redshift]

Where and when will it all end? Will we develop computer models for the thermal conductivity of all the speaker components to determine how they relate back to speaker measurements? After all some people prefer a warm house and others a cooler environment. Or since the room will change the performance anyway, are we just spinning in circles? Are there any mandates for what temperature should be used in the chambers? With powered monitors, won't the temperature be dependent on what type of music is being played and the volume? I very much appreciate ASR and others with knowledge and equipment to investigate these issues. More than that I appreciate the dedication of those who work so hard. But is there a point of no return? Are we falling into a rabbit hole that may have no carrots at the bottom? Can science sometimes go too far into a gnat's ass?

Most new microprocessors and DSP’s can report their junction temperature. Or perhaps just slap a PT100 I2C transducer on the inside of the cabinet and call it a day. Temperature curves kindly included in the DSP calibration routines.

 

[snackiac]

These are classified as near field only a lot, but I've been using them as my LCRs for a bit now (two subs) and they sound amazing. After a lot of reading I still have some questions about near field vs other. It's mostly an SPL issue right? I guess if a speaker has poor off axis response it could sound good near field on axis but bad far, since that brings in room reflections? Anything else? I gather than Neumann is mostly saying these aren't appropriate for actual studio work at distance since they won't go loud enough, but that's about it.

I feel like these would be amazing for a huge amount of people who don't need reference volumes and could fit a couple svs micro 3000s in the mix. I'm in an apartment and I can't imagine something smaller sounding better.

 

[redshift]

These are classified as near field only a lot, but I've been using them as my LCRs for a bit now (two subs) and they sound amazing. After a lot of reading I still have some questions about near field vs other. It's mostly an SPL issue right? I guess if a speaker has poor off axis response it could sound good near field on axis but bad far, since that brings in room reflections? Anything else? I gather than Neumann is mostly saying these aren't appropriate for actual studio work at distance since they won't go loud enough, but that's about it.

I feel like these would be amazing for a huge amount of people who don't need reference volumes and could fit a couple svs micro 3000s in the mix. I'm in an apartment and I can't imagine something smaller sounding better.

Think of it this way; most engineers use near field monitors as their default speakers.

Therefore records will likely sound the best on near field monitors in a near field rig.

This does not imply that your near field monitors will sound equally good in a far field setup where the room acoustics is a significant contributor to the sound.

 

[Sancus]

These are classified as near field only a lot, but I've been using them as my LCRs for a bit now (two subs) and they sound amazing. After a lot of reading I still have some questions about near field vs other. It's mostly an SPL issue right?

Yes, correct. The definition of nearfield as used by pro studio monitor companies means "the direct sound is dominant", as opposed to reflections. This distance varies based on room size, treatment, and speaker dispersion. For most normal sized domestic rooms and speakers it will end at around 1.5-2m. For unusually large rooms, with narrower dispersion speakers, it can be as far as 5m.

That said, I own KH80s and IMO they are pretty SPL limited even with subs. You can only get about 95dB@1m out of them from 100-300hz before distortion rises uncomfortably far. If you have them in corners or near at least 1 wall, that helps, but it's still pretty borderline for tv/film peaks at -5 or -10dB, and certainly impractical for 0dB(85dB avg/105 peak). You definitely notice a lack of power in the upper bass if you are used to larger speakers, even at only 2m.

For their size they do play shockingly loud of course, and if you are happy with the output there's absolutely no reason you can't use them that way.

 

[BYRTT]

These are classified as near field only a lot, but I've been using them as my LCRs for a bit now (two subs) and they sound amazing. After a lot of reading I still have some questions about near field vs other. It's mostly an SPL issue right? I guess if a speaker has poor off axis response it could sound good near field on axis but bad far, since that brings in room reflections? Anything else? I gather than Neumann is mostly saying these aren't appropriate for actual studio work at distance since they won't go loud enough, but that's about it.

I feel like these would be amazing for a huge amount of people who don't need reference volumes and could fit a couple svs micro 3000s in the mix. I'm in an apartment and I can't imagine something smaller sounding better.

For use as near field monitor it looks clear Neumann has flat on axis / listening window curves as target and that makes sense, but in use as farfield PIR plus power response curves begin take over and they bit too hot below say 1000-1400Hz area dictated by the directivity index curve go more omni (more energy) down there. Suggest try 1x PEQ -2,4dB Q=0,486 @346Hz so that power response curve goes smooth ideal, that target policy seems to be used by many Genelec monitors analyzed by Amir in below graphs suggested PEQ (right side) is set to step -0,4dB at a time..

 

[snackiac]

Thanks for the great info everyone! Crystal clear now I think.

BYRTT, that EQ matches my experience exactly. I was so happy with them on my desk that I never bothered to EQ them, but I definitely noticed something was a little too much on the main system. Running XT32 seemed to take care of it though, and after that I haven't had any complaints.

 

[ernestcarl]

I have owned the KH120's (also with the KH805 sub) + KH310's and now still own the KH80's.
I much prefer the 80 over the 120, even though they indeed sound a bit smaller and don't go as low.
They sound more neutral and detailed and have a superior stereo image.

This is very interesting to hear since the spinorama between the two are very close to identical.

I wonder if the muddiness has more to do with the substantial low bass hump in the KH120 which is absent in the KH80.

In the mids, I suspect some of the better sound you're hearing might be coming from KH80's linear phase xo. To my ears, there's an aggressiveness to the KH120's sound around the xo region -- which can be mitigated ever so slightly by correcting the phase response.

 

[Newman]

Think of it this way; most engineers use near field monitors as their default speakers.

…for mixing. In the control room.

But not for mastering. I see serious engineers using reference grade floor standers for mastering, in a mastering suite not unlike a fairly good-sized home listening room with sensible treatments.

Here is Bob Katz in his:

Michael Romanowski at Coast Mastering:

Recording studios who try to do mastering in the near-field control room or recording studio, are shoddy and doing us a disservice.

Therefore records will likely sound the best on near field monitors in a near field rig.

The most professional efforts will sound best in a moderately-sized listening room, at typical listening distance, roughly mimicking the mastering suite conditions and speaker capability shown above.


cheers

 

[redshift]

…for mixing. In the control room.

But not for mastering. I see serious engineers using reference grade floor standers for mastering, in a mastering suite not unlike a fairly good-sized home listening room with sensible treatments.

Here is Bob Katz in his:
View attachment 140974

Michael Romanowski at Coast Mastering:
View attachment 140975


Recording studios who try to do mastering in the near-field control room or recording studio, are shoddy and doing us a disservice.



The most professional efforts will sound best in a moderately-sized listening room, at typical listening distance, roughly mimicking the mastering suite conditions and speaker capability shown above.


cheers

I’m quite sure the quality of the mixing and mastering engineers vary as much as the model and make of speakers reviewed here. Not to mention the taste of the musicians.

I’d like to see the FR of Michael and Rob’s floorstanders in the listening position of theirs. Surely they must have it?

 

[YSC]

Yes, correct. The definition of nearfield as used by pro studio monitor companies means "the direct sound is dominant", as opposed to reflections. This distance varies based on room size, treatment, and speaker dispersion. For most normal sized domestic rooms and speakers it will end at around 1.5-2m. For unusually large rooms, with narrower dispersion speakers, it can be as far as 5m.

That said, I own KH80s and IMO they are pretty SPL limited even with subs. You can only get about 95dB@1m out of them from 100-300hz before distortion rises uncomfortably far. If you have them in corners or near at least 1 wall, that helps, but it's still pretty borderline for tv/film peaks at -5 or -10dB, and certainly impractical for 0dB(85dB avg/105 peak). You definitely notice a lack of power in the upper bass if you are used to larger speakers, even at only 2m.

For their size they do play shockingly loud of course, and if you are happy with the output there's absolutely no reason you can't use them that way.

As I always think, size matters.

not by the bigger the better, I believe a suitable sized speaker in the relevant room is all it goes, you can get horrendous results putting 2 floor standers and listening with 1m distance and vice versa if you use the kh80 in a 100 sq m living room

much like driving a truck into narrow village or trying to tow some containers with Ferrari

 

[redshift]

As I always think, size matters.

not by the bigger the better, I believe a suitable sized speaker in the relevant room is all it goes, you can get horrendous results putting 2 floor standers and listening with 1m distance and vice versa if you use the kh80 in a 100 sq m living room

much like driving a truck into narrow village or trying to tow some containers with Ferrari

Yep, the far fielders should be capable of somewhat slapping the room around with sufficient amounts of energy in the audio band.

Ideally doing that in a rather large listening area (or 3D volume) without too much FR coloration/distortion. Unless puny sweet spot listening is your thing.

 

[Matias]

I’m quite sure the quality of the mixing and mastering engineers vary as much as the model and make of speakers reviewed here. Not to mention the taste of the musicians.

I’d like to see the FR of Michael and Rob’s floorstanders in the listening position of theirs. Surely they must have it?

Bob Katz uses Dynaudio, NCore, JL subwoofers and Acourate DRC in his mastering room.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/katz’s-corner-episode-12-throwing-down-gauntlet

 

[thewas]

Bob Katz uses Dynaudio, NCore, JL subwoofers and Acourate DRC in his mastering room.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/katz’s-corner-episode-12-throwing-down-gauntlet

And a imho questionable target curve / correction for them https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ike-to-see-reviewed.10943/page-25#post-359319

 

[redshift]

Bob Katz uses Dynaudio, NCore, JL subwoofers and Acourate DRC in his mastering room.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/katz’s-corner-episode-12-throwing-down-gauntlet

From the article:

It took a lot of correction to get there with the Revels and to my ears the sound is not as coherent or tight as the Dyns.

Mmh, yeah, Houston - we got a problem…

 

[Newman]

But the problem is NOT that he is mastering with mini monitors in the near field, nor that his productions will sound best played on such gear at home in a near field rig.

 

[redshift]

But the problem is NOT that he is mastering with mini monitors in the near field, nor that his productions will sound best played on such gear at home in a near field rig.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Newman]

I just did that, #491