A Blind Test Attempt: Neumann KH310+Sub vs KH120+Sub, and My Thoughts on CEA2034 and Preference Rating

[Senior NEET Engineer]

Thank you for the excellent carried out and documented test which matches most user experiences who have listened to both and shows repeatedly that while the Harman metric is good enough to show the difference between poor and good as like we know tonality is what counts most, if it is wrong than the rest doesn't not matter much anymore, it does not show differences outside of tonality which matter at a high quality level comparison were tonalities are all good. I think the main difference lies not in HD but in IMD (which related to HD though) and other non-linearities which cannot be measured through HD.

You think IMD is an issue at 60 dB SPL listening level?

 

[LTig]

You think IMD is an issue at 60 dB SPL listening level?

I do. In my view other than HD IMD is not easily masked by music because it is non harmonic. Also you have to keep in mind that an average listening level of 60 dB SPL may have peaks up to 80 dB SPL.

 

[Frank Dernie]

My average SPL was around 60dB, so probably not that either.

No, probably not.
My quiet room measures about 30dB so at a listening level of 60dB distortion greater than -30dB would lost be in the background.
I know tones peaking below background noise levels can be heard, but I suspect not whilst music is playing? Anybody seen any research.

 

[LTig]

Yeah, I'd like to see research about audibility of IMD.

 

[oivavoi]

I am not throwing shade on Harman’s research. I chose these Neumann studio monitors mainly because their CEA2034 data and presumed preference ratings are quite good. The CEA2034 data available on ASR and other sites have helped me avoid many unworthy options. These measurements allowed me to purchase the KH120 and KH310 without audition and have no regrets. Nonetheless, they have limitations, and it is beyond my understanding of acoustics and speaker design to identify what these limitations are.

Fantastic test! Thank you so much!

This made curious: In your subjective appraisal, what seems to you as the limitations of the KH310s? How would you describe it with your own words?

 

[aarons915]

View attachment 100816View attachment 100818



Now, can anyone guess which pair of responses is the KH310+sub, and which pair is the KH120+subs?
View attachment 100823

Nice test and write-up, I don't know for sure which is which but shrillness suggests a problem in the highs and the top speaker in your in room measurements has peaking around 1500Hz, then 2800 and 4k so my bet would be that they are the KH120. If both of these were done with Dirac my question is why are they so different?

My personal opinion on this is with 2 great speakers like these, I would compare without Dirac and without subs but I would normalize the bass as close as I can. By that I mean I would run the KH120 with whatever high pass you plan on and then make the KH310 match it's bass response. My reasoning is because even though you used Dirac you can see the bass response for both isn't identical and it just adds another variable, that and the fact that Dirac doesn't seem to be consistent even in the highs. At the very least I would limit Dirac to 200-300Hz and leave the highs alone.

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Also could just listen in mono for the test.

I understand that listening in mono will be more revealing a bigger difference than listening in stereo, and stereo makes the flaws more tolerable. However, to prove that the improvement from KH120 to KH310 is significant in my room, the KH310 needs to outperform the KH120 in stereo, the way I normally listen to music. If I could not prove to myself that the KH310 was a significant improvement from the KH120 in stereo, then I might as well just keep using the KH120.

 

[Senior NEET Engineer]

I do. In my view other than HD IMD is not easily masked by music because it is non harmonic. Also you have to keep in mind that an average listening level of 60 dB SPL may have peaks up to 80 dB SPL.

With 80hz crossover, they are rated for 104 dB SPL at 7 feet. 80 dB at 3 feet would be a lot less than 5% of its capabilities. Non linear distortions are only an issue when you start pushing the limits.

 

[andreasmaaan]

@Χ Ξ Σ well done for setting this test up and reporting on it. Of course it's not a perfectly controlled test, but it's way more controlled than most home listening "tests" are, and the results are interesting.

If I could play devil's advocate for a moment, I note that in the first trial you preferred the KH120. At what point did you become aware that that speaker had "won" the first trial?

I agree with @EXIF68 that the port is the most likely cause of the shrillness you hear with certain recordings on the KH120, and that nonlinear distortion is less likely to be a significant factor at your listening levels and with the speakers crossed to subs (although ofc not impossible, either).

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

@Χ Ξ Σ well done for setting this test up and reporting on it. Of course it's not a perfectly controlled test, but it's way more controlled than most home listening "tests" are, and the results are interesting.

If I could play devil's advocate for a moment, I note that in the first trial you preferred the KH120. At what point did you become aware that that speaker had "won" the first trial?

I agree with @EXIF68 that the port is the most likely cause of the shrillness you hear with certain recordings on the KH120, and that nonlinear distortion is less likely to be a significant factor at your listening levels and with the speakers crossed to subs (although ofc not impossible, either).

Interesting question. I had not played music on the KH310 before the test in order to avoid expectation bias. The first sample of the first trial was indeed the first time I ever listened to the KH310 playing music. I think the reason why I prefer the KH120 for the first three trials in a row is that the KH120 sounded familiar to my ears. Therefore, I preferred the familiar sound over the unfamiliar sound. This familiarity even made me temporarily overlook the shrillness.

 

[a|F]

Thank you for this review and the effort. The 310's would have far more interest to us home-office types if they were configured vertically.

Still loving my 120's!

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Fantastic test! Thank you so much!

This made curious: In your subjective appraisal, what seems to you as the limitations of the KH310s? How would you describe it with your own words?

I was actually talking about the limitations of the CEA2034 and Preference Rating, not the speakers. As for what are the limitations of the KH310, I haven't auditioned any comparable speakers to make a fair assessment.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

The LSR310S extends to 27Hz, just barely covers the whole piano range.

@Χ Ξ Σ , Small FYI. Due to the phenomenon of "missing fundamental", the A0 note of a grand piano does not produce 27Hz, not even 55Hz.

 

[EXIF68]

A0 note of a piano is 27,5Hz as shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies
and this 27,5Hz is the base frequency and combined with several harmonics. So the base frequency of a monitor speaker should be in that area. Here is the KH310 the perfect tool. KH120 without subwoofer cannot reproduce the deepest notes of a piano in the full extent. In comparison to the base, the highest notes should not be a problem for the most monitor speakers. but a piano can be a huge problem for the DAC. When I do a comparison between my Benchmark DAC2 and my CD-Payer Sony CDP 707ES by headphones or DXT-MON you can hear a huge difference in clarity and unsophistication of the sound.

 

[LeftCoastTim]

A0 note of a piano is 27,5Hz as shown here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies
and this 27,5Hz is the base frequency and combined with several harmonics. So the base frequency of a monitor speaker should be in that area. Here is the KH310 the perfect tool. KH120 without subwoofer cannot reproduce the deepest notes of a piano in the full extent.

The fundamental frequency of A0 is 27.5Hz. This is correct. That means the first harmonic is 55Hz. Again correct.

But A0 on a concert piano--the string and the soundboard--does not actually produce these frequencies. Only the 3rd harmonic (110Hz) and above are produced by the piano, but your brain makes up the fundamental (27.5Hz) in your head. Again, this phenomenon is called the "Missing Fundamental", as I noted above.

Here is a demonstration video, which you can try playing this on a laptop speaker which likely has no ability to produce sounds below 80Hz. You'll hear the "notes" perfectly fine.

There is no reason for your speaker to reproduce frequencies that does not exist in the recording nor live. That's what the science says. But people believe all kinds of strange things about audio / sound reproduction (see my signature).

 

[andreasmaaan]

Interesting question. I had not played music on the KH310 before the test in order to avoid expectation bias. The first sample of the first trial was indeed the first time I ever listened to the KH310 playing music. I think the reason why I prefer the KH120 for the first three trials in a row is that the KH120 sounded familiar to my ears. Therefore, I preferred the familiar sound over the unfamiliar sound. This familiarity even made me temporarily overlook the shrillness.

Thanks I think my question wasn’t 100% clear. What I meant was, in the second and subsequent trials, was it apparent to you (or did you have a sense, which turned out to be correct) from the sonic differences which speaker was which, based on knowing which had been which in the first trial?

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Thanks I think my question wasn’t 100% clear. What I meant was, in the second and subsequent trials, was it apparent to you (or did you have a sense, which turned out to be correct) from the sonic differences which speaker was which, based on knowing which had been which in the first trial?

My test lasted three days. I did two sets of tests each day. I did not find out which remote corresponding to which speakers until the end of the day 1, meaning that I wasn't fully sure which speakers were the KH310 until I finished 8 trials. I started to have a sense on day 2, and knew what to look for in the KH310. This sense also made the test easier.

 

[napilopez]

Much appreciate the test @Χ Ξ Σ! You put a lot of effort into doing this right, certainly much better than most comparisons we see!

So I personally feel there are still too many variables for me to be comfortable with the results of this determining that the KH310 + sub is better than a kh120 with sub, especially given the SPL levels involved. I know OP's goal was more to find which one they preferred, but just as a bit of caution for people assuming that the KH310 is better due to some aspect of its big extra driver when both speakers are being heard at low SPLs.

I will sound like a broken record, but I believe it is just as likely that some combination of FR/directivity of the KH310 plus its interaction with the room/setup was preferred rather than just bigger=better. While that may be true if all else is equal, I don't really think all elese is equal here. Very different vertical directivity, lower frequency directivity control in the KH310, smoother average off-axis at 2kHz+ (by contrast, I don't think the 'jaggedness' of the KH310 measurements matters all that much). Directivity makes it nearly impossible for two speakers with different designs to fully alike, even if they are both very good, and one-on-one comparisons tend to exaggerate differences, which is why the harman tests typically use a minimum of three speakers.

Plus when listening in stereo the frequency of interaural crosstalk dip will change with the different positionings of the speakers, about 1.8kHz at 30 degrees, and rising as the distance between speakers gets smaller relative to your LP. That alone will color the sound of each speaker differently given fixed positioning, exacerbated by the nearfield setup which has proportionally attenuated room reflections that could 'fill in' that perceptual dip. To continue to play satan's lawyer, a speaker sounding "fuller and heavier, like if the sound was solid" is also how I might often describe the change in a given speaker from using a bit more toe in or positioning the speakers closer together.

So on and so forth.

But the test did determine what you thought was best for you, and that's what matters most, and I appreciate you sharing the results.

 

[ernestcarl]

The KH310 makes the KH120 sound like gas.

I think the only thing I found somewhat disagreeable in the review given the limitations is with that line. I know it's just a subjective comment, but ouch. I've owned and have been using the KH120s for like 10(?) years now, and I can't believe I've been happily listening to bad sounding farts that whole decade. LOL!

In my own recent (non-blind) listening comparison of the KH120 and Sceptre S8, I didn't test any solo classical piano tracks -- I went the opposite route and used rather dense music at loud volumes. It wasn't so much the woofer of the KH120 that bothered me but the extended highs from the tweeter.

no HF shelving yet applied to KH120; 5-10 kHz pulled down from S8s

I think you can see in the directivity curves that even after shelving, those extended highs in the KH120, they just don't attenuate as much off-axis. At loud listening volumes where I get to hear more of that re-radiated/reflected sound off-axis come back at me, I feel like my ears are taking more of a sustained beating than I would have liked.

Much of the off-axis sounds coming back at me from the S8s, on the other hand, are far more attenuated which likely makes them sound "warmer", yet still quite 'present' & 'bright' (5-10k)... I know it's more complicated than that, but that's my simple (partial) interpretation of it anyway.

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

LOL, By "gas" I meant it in the sense of "solid, liquid and gas", in relation to the KH310s sound like solid, No way I was saying that the KH120s are bad sounding farts!

I haven't finished reading your recent post yet, but I get what you mean by your ears are taking a sustained beating. The tweeters on the KH310, KH120, and my long-gone Tannoy Gold 8 all sounded too bright to my ears. Those waveguide and coaxial design perserve too much high frequency energy in the nearfield.

When not corrected, the desk bounce and other reflections enhance low and mid frequencies, which more or less offset the brightness. But I don't like to listen without correction because the desk bounce not only smears the image but also bring the image down to my chesk level. With correction the image goes up to my eye level. When corrected by Dirac's default target (I think it's about 0.5db down per octave full range), these speakers still sounded a little bright. My preferred target is around 1db down per octave for high frequency, but I have not finalized my personal taeget yet.