With regard to the difference between the 80's and 120 II's, it would then depend, I think, on two issues. 1) Do you want the substantially deeper bass extension than the 80's would provide? The 80's simply reproduce nothing down there where the 120 II's do. But since you would use that sub...
Although I am a big Neumann proponent, I would not think so. The 80's have rather limited application. If you are going to change I would suggest you wait and get KH 120 II's.
With very nearfield positioning, Neumann monitors will be ok. The problem is the small room size. Here is an explanation.
As far as acoustics go, there is considerable attention to this, which I consider critical. The most important thing is the monitors and their setup...
It depends on what audio interface you have now and how critical your needs are for excellent audio. In general if you interface is more than about six years old, a new interface would make a difference. New converter chips are much better than previous ones.
The best guide is to look at...
The 4th gen are very good ----- compared to the inferior ones they used to produce. See the YT review by Julian Krause - who is the top expert on audio interfaces.
Not Neuman monitors - especially the KH 150's and KH 120 II's. They have narrow dispersion patterns. That is one of the factors in Neumann's emphasis on nearfield.
That is not necessarily true for very nearfield monitors that are designed with a narrow dispersion pattern. At one meter, such monitors have direct sound levels that are substantially directly from the monitors themselves. The room plays a much smaller role. For farfield and midfield...
First, the build quality is very good - considering that they are mostly plastic. But the plastic finish quality is good and the construction feels solid.
The comfort, for me, is very good. More comfortable than the Neumanns. The light weight is a benefit.
As far as sound, I was...