Desk speakers (active or passive) up to ~1500€

[AudioJester]

Someone needs to send Amir their Harbeth and Neumann speakers for measurement, so we can add objective measurement to the discussion.
There is a way to compare now....

 

[bunnyfuzz]

Genelec 8020’s or 8030’s with a pair of Genelec 7040 subwoofers. All analog, no additional conversion. Stereo subs make the speakers three ways and help to even room response. All XLR hookups. Very durable build. Fit on desk nicely too.

 

[napilopez]

Someone needs to send Amir their Harbeth and Neumann speakers for measurement, so we can add objective measurement to the discussion.
There is a way to compare now....

Well, Neumann provides more manufacturer data than almost anyone, though they don't use spinoramas. But if you know how to interpret graphs it's easy enough to extrapolate that the Neumann's would be among the best measuring speakers on the market. The 310s s bit different because their driver alignment, but the KH80 and KH120 measure basically like ideal monopole speakers of the narrower dispersion variety.

 

[Sancus]

Well, Neumann provides more manufacturer data than almost anyone, though they don't use spinoramas. But if you know how to interpret graphs it's easy enough to extrapolate that the Neumann's would be among the best measuring speakers on the market. The 310s s bit different because their driver alignment, but the KH80 and KH120 measure basically like ideal monopole speakers of the narrower dispersion variety.

I feel like the higher-priced Neumanns (310s and 420) fall behind comparable Genelecs due to their vertical dispersion, though, which is good for the type of speaker, but mediocre compared to the best coaxials.

Whether or not that matters to you is a different story, but I do feel like when you're paying $4800/speaker(KH420) it is reasonable to expect perfect horizontal AND vertical dispersion...and you don't really get that.

 

[napilopez]

I feel like the higher-priced Neumanns (310s and 420) fall behind comparable Genelecs due to their vertical dispersion, though, which is good for the type of speaker, but mediocre compared to the best coaxials.

Whether or not that matters to you is a different story, but I do feel like when you're paying $4800/speaker(KH420) it is reasonable to expect perfect horizontal AND vertical dispersion...and you don't really get that.

I'm as much of a sucker for good vertical dispersion as anyone, but there are very, very few non-coaxial speakers with great vertical dispersion though. You argument would suggest that speakers we know to be great in blind tests like the Revel Salon2 then aren't worth the price, or other non-coaxials.

My understanding is that the effects of vertical dispersion are less audible than the horizontal, and are mainly heard in how they influence the overall tonality via early reflections and sound power.

 

[Sancus]

I'm as much of a sucker for good vertical dispersion as anyone, but there are very, very few non-coaxial speakers with great vertical dispersion though. You argument would suggest that speakers we know to be great in blind tests like the Revel Salon2 then aren't worth the price, or other non-coaxials.

My understanding is that the effects of vertical dispersion are less audible than the horizontal, and are mainly heard in how they influence the overall tonality via early reflections and sound power.

Hey, the Neumann KH80 have really solid vertical dispersion for reasonably priced non-coaxials! So it is possible. I generally agree with you though, I'm also quite uncertain about the value of vertical dispersion. I just think if you're spending $5K/speaker, why not get it if you can without other sacrifices?

I know the Revel Salon2/JBL M2 do great in blind tests, but how many blind tests compare them to speakers with excellent vertical dispersion while not introducing any other major flaws? Given how rare those speakers are(Genelec the only ones I'm aware of?) it seems possible that poor vertical dispersion introduces flaws that "everyone is just used to". Or maybe well-treated rooms compensate sufficiently.

But if good vertical dispersion introduces a significant improvement outside those conditions, it might be something to care about if your budget is high but you don't want to room treat for practical or aesthetic reasons, etc...

Also, blind tests restricted to single speakers seem particularly difficult for any smaller speaker that doesn't have the insane bass extension/quality of those larger floorstanding monsters. But of course, adding subs adds complications...

 

[JIW]

To expand on my previous post particularly regarding the height of the listening position and the placement of the acoustic axis of the speaker, here are the relevant calculations.

If the acoustic and rotation axes are perpendicular and the rotation point is the intersection between the acoustic axis and the front of the speaker, the distances can be calculated from:

d_L:      distance between intersection of acoustic axis and front of speaker and listener
z_L:      distance between speaker and listener parallel to desk top surface
h_L:      height of acoustic axis over desk top at listening position
h_A:      height of acoustic axis over desk top at front of speaker
alpha:  angle between acoustic axis and desk top surface

d_L = sqrt(y_L^2+z_L^2)

h_L = h_A + sin(alpha) x d_L

z_L = cos(alpha) x d_L

h_L = h_A + tan(alpha) x z_L

Note that only when the rotation axis and the acoustic axis intersect at the rotation point is the angle between acoustic axis and desk top surface is the rotation angle.

The general solution is:

Same as before and
d_L_0:  d_L if rotation axis and the acoustic axis intersect at the rotation point
z_L_0:  z_L if rotation axis and the acoustic axis intersect at the rotation point
h_A_0:  h_A if rotation axis and the acoustic axis intersect at the rotation point

y_R:  distance between intersection of acoustic axis and front of speaker and rotation axis parallel to front of speaker and
             perpendicular to desktop surface if rotation axis and the acoustic axis intersect at the rotation point
z_R:  distance between intersection of acoustic axis and front of speaker and rotation axis perpendicular to front of speaker

Delta_h_A(alpha, y_R, z_R) = sin(alpha) x z_R + (cos(alpha) - 1) x y_R
Delta_z_L(alpha, y_R, z_R) = (cos(alpha) - 1) x z_R - sin(alpha) x y_R

d_L(alpha, y_R, z_R) = sqrt((h_L-(h_A_0 + Delta_h_A(alpha, y_R, z_R)))^2 + (z_L_0 + Delta_z_L(alpha, y_R, z_R))^2)

h_A_0(alpha, h_L, d_L, y_R, z_R) = h_L - Delta_h_A(alpha, y_R, z_R) - sqrt(d_L^2 - (z_L_0 + Delta_z_L(alpha, y_R, z_R))^2)

 

[raistlin65]

While I agree with your premise in the sense that there is a degree of subjectivity to speakers, there is little evidence to suggest people have preference for different "house curves" as far as I'm aware. Meanwhile there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that flat-ish on axis and fairly smooth off axis performance is correlated with listener preference in blind tests.

This is a quote of Sean Olive by Tyll Hersens at Innerfidelity,

“The MOA tests have told us that the exact amount of preferred bass/treble will vary depending on age, listening experience, gender, and program material. Younger listeners and less experienced listeners generally preferred slightly more bass and treble than older, more experienced listeners. For senior listeners (55+ years old) we found they preferred on average even less bass but more treble than younger listeners. We believe this is related to hearing loss. This is an educated guess because we didn’t measure the hearing of the subjects (except Harman trained ones) and we need to test a larger sample."

“So the final target satisfies the majority of listeners, although it won’t be perfect for all programs and all people. We believe some degree of personalization is necessary to satisfy all listeners.”

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-tweaks-its-headphone-target-response

So it varies by age and experience, and you can see that they are not insisting it's true even for an age demographic where he uses the term "generally."

 

[napilopez]

Hey, the Neumann KH80 have really solid vertical dispersion for reasonably priced non-coaxials! So it is possible. I generally agree with you though, I'm also quite uncertain about the value of vertical dispersion. I just think if you're spending $5K/speaker, why not get it if you can without other sacrifices?

I know the Revel Salon2/JBL M2 do great in blind tests, but how many blind tests compare them to speakers with excellent vertical dispersion while not introducing any other major flaws? Given how rare those speakers are(Genelec the only ones I'm aware of?) it seems possible that poor vertical dispersion introduces flaws that "everyone is just used to". Or maybe well-treated rooms compensate sufficiently.

But if good vertical dispersion introduces a significant improvement outside those conditions, it might be something to care about if your budget is high but you don't want to room treat for practical or aesthetic reasons, etc...

Also, blind tests restricted to single speakers seem particularly difficult for any smaller speaker that doesn't have the insane bass extension/quality of those larger floorstanding monsters. But of course, adding subs adds complications...

It's better than most, but still poor compared to a coaxial. Here's what that looks like in an SPL graph. Here's what my KH80 looks like out to 75 degrees:

Still, that's some of the best vertical response I've seen from a two-way non coaxial. Notably, the dips are fairly narrow, and the KH80 has narrower vertical directivity and wider horizontal directivity to minimize the overall level of desk reflections.

This is a quote of Sean Olive by Tyll Hersens at Innerfidelity,

“The MOA tests have told us that the exact amount of preferred bass/treble will vary depending on age, listening experience, gender, and program material. Younger listeners and less experienced listeners generally preferred slightly more bass and treble than older, more experienced listeners. For senior listeners (55+ years old) we found they preferred on average even less bass but more treble than younger listeners. We believe this is related to hearing loss. This is an educated guess because we didn’t measure the hearing of the subjects (except Harman trained ones) and we need to test a larger sample."

“So the final target satisfies the majority of listeners, although it won’t be perfect for all programs and all people. We believe some degree of personalization is necessary to satisfy all listeners.”

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/harman-tweaks-its-headphone-target-response

So it varies by age and experience, and you can see that they are not insisting it's true even for an age demographic where he uses the term "generally."

Thanks, I've read this piece before . However, this for headphones and IEM, so not quite the same. Note that despite these preferences, Harman's IEM studies were still able to predict listener preference to a remarkably high degree (91 percent, I think). With headphones, there's more variation in the bass department because of people trying to replicate the tangibility of speakers, I think.

Harman's generalized speaker performance model was able to predict which speakers (of 70 tested) would be preferred over others with 86 percent accuracy. In an earlier, smaller test with more controlled parameters (13 speakers), they were able to predict preference with basically 100 percent accuracy. In both cases, flat on axis, smooth off axis, and bass extension were the three biggest contributing factors to preference.

While there's probably some small amount of preference regarding treble and bass, it's really not all that much as some manufacturers would have you believe.

 

[Pluto]

You obviously never auditioned any Neumann speaker. The intelligibility of human voices is outstanding.

I have indeed, but have not carried out this type of test with any Neumann speaker.

But “intelligibility” is not the same thing as being able to be mistaken for the real thing when the two are side by side. I can do many things to increase the apparent intelligibility of human speech (NB naturally spoken word such as a news reader, not singing), but such processes inevitably make the sound less natural.

 

[raistlin65]

Thanks, I've read this piece before . However, this for headphones and IEM, so not quite the same. Note that despite these preferences, Harman's IEM studies were still able to predict listener preference to a remarkably high degree (91 percent, I think). With headphones, there's more variation in the bass department because of people trying to replicate the tangibility of speakers, I think.

Harman's generalized speaker performance model was able to predict which speakers (of 70 tested) would be preferred over others with 86 percent accuracy. In an earlier, smaller test with more controlled parameters (13 speakers), they were able to predict preference with basically 100 percent accuracy. In both cases, flat on axis, smooth off axis, and bass extension were the three biggest contributing factors to preference.

Headphones and speakers will not have the same target response. Sure. But the point is that sound preference for bass and treble emphasis does vary. Sean Olive admitted that.

While there's probably some small amount of preference regarding treble and bass, it's really not all that much as some manufacturers would have you believe.

I'm not basing what I think on what manufacturers say. Rather, there is a sweeping generalization that is applied in this hobby that more neutral is always better. For example, my own experience owning and demoing many headphones and speakers over the years has shown that I prefer a slightly warm sound.

However, I do suspect that neutral is probably always preferred over the wrong frequency response emphasis, particularly when there are jagged peaks or dips in the response of a speaker. So there is a value for a smooth response that comes into play here as well.

I also suspect that frequency response preference may, to a certain extent, be influenced by experience, effectively learned through repeated exposure. But that's a discussion for another day

 

[Buddelpudding]

If you want to keep everything after the RME DAC purely analogue, then buy a pair of KH120s and one of these:

https://en-de.neumann.com/kh-805

This sounds pretty good to me. A few more questions have arised:
1) How about Neumann vs. Genelec in terms of sound/measurement quality?
2) Do the KH120 perform well at low listening volumes? (this is a requirement I forgot to mention)

Thanks for all the helpful input so far!

BTW: I tried placing the ELACs on books and indeed they sound much better already. Still, I feel like I would like something more resolving. And when I find some money on the street, a subwoofer.

 

[napilopez]

Headphones and speakers will not have the same target response. Sure. But the point is that sound preference for bass and treble emphasis does vary. Sean Olive admitted that.

I'm not basing what I think on what manufacturers say. Rather, there is a sweeping generalization that is applied in this hobby that more neutral is always better. For example, my own experience owning and demoing many headphones and speakers over the years has shown that I prefer a slightly warm sound.

However, I do suspect that neutral is probably always preferred over the wrong frequency response emphasis, particularly when there are jagged peaks or dips in the response of a speaker. So there is a value for a smooth response that comes into play here as well.

I also suspect that frequency response preference may, to a certain extent, be influenced by experience, effectively learned through repeated exposure. But that's a discussion for another day

We're not disagreeing that there's variation, but I'm saying whatever variation exists is small enough to not influence our preference for one speaker over another significantly. Anyway, we're getting a bit off topic =]

This sounds pretty good to me. A few more questions have arised:
1) How about Neumann vs. Genelec in terms of sound/measurement quality?
2) Do the KH120 perform well at low listening volumes? (this is a requirement I forgot to mention)

Thanks for all the helpful input so far!

BTW: I tried placing the ELACs on books and indeed they sound much better already. Still, I feel like I would like something more resolving. And when I find some money on the street, a subwoofer.

It depends on what measurements you're looking at, really. I haven't heard any Genelecs, so I can't say much regarding personal impressions. Looking just at the data, the Neumann's perform better on axis, the genelec coaxials will of course perform better on the vertical front.

 

[flowjm]

This sounds pretty good to me. A few more questions have arised:
1) How about Neumann vs. Genelec in terms of sound/measurement quality?
2) Do the KH120 perform well at low listening volumes? (this is a requirement I forgot to mention)

Thanks for all the helpful input so far!

BTW: I tried placing the ELACs on books and indeed they sound much better already. Still, I feel like I would like something more resolving. And when I find some money on the street, a subwoofer.

1) I've no idea how they compare to Genelec's, I'm afraid.

2) I actually have the KH310s as opposed to the 120s, and I find them fine at low volumes.

I should also say that if you plan on only listening to music, you might find that you can make do without the sub. But if you use them to watch films, you might miss the low end.

 

[Willem]

I would do some rew measurements, preferably with a Umik-1 calibrated microphone. Create a correction curve and apply that to the Equalizer Apo.

 

[q3cpma]

This sounds pretty good to me. A few more questions have arised:
1) How about Neumann vs. Genelec in terms of sound/measurement quality?

Should be quite similar, if you exclude the special models like the KH310 or the Ones. But I'm leaning toward Genelec because of their enclosures, nice class D amps and way longer warranty. I'll probably replace my HS7 with 8340A, 8341A or KH310 this summer.

 

[NTomokawa]

I'll probably replace my HS7 with 8340A, 8341A or KH310 this summer.

Quite an upgrade there. Waiting for impressions...

 

[raistlin65]

We're not disagreeing that there's variation, but I'm saying whatever variation exists is small enough to not influence our preference for one speaker over another significantly. Anyway, we're getting a bit off topic =]

Is it off-topic? The assumption by some replying in these threads that ask for speaker recommendations is the more neutral, the better. I personally think that's a big assumption.

So what is the variation that people like? You say it's not much. Having read hundreds of discussions over the years on audio forums regarding headphone recommendations, where people have had a chance to experiment with many different sound signatures, there seems to be a lot of variance in what people prefer in terms of general frequency response.

 

[Sancus]

The "what about preference" argument is a red herring IMO, because neutral speakers with good directivity can be EQed to your preference, whereas many colourations are impossible to fix with EQ and make whatever EQ you attempt to do less predictable and more difficult.

 

[boniek]

How about iLoud MTM? They are bundled with room correction as standard (AFAIK no subwoofer management though) and are supposed to be pretty good. They go for about 700 euros a pair. IMO in real life automatic room correction is more important than perfectly flat, but anechoic, FR measurements of Neumann's (MTM's FR curve is pretty nice as well, but I guess they would distort more with more SPL). No idea about rest of the usual measurements so you would need to do some research about those.