After Neumann KH 310A Review: What to buy?

[Frank Dernie]

I agree that nothing is resonance free, but I don't think that makes aiming for it as a goal a bad thing.
I disagree that it's not feasible to discuss the validity of the differing approaches. I think it's fairly clear that the BBC thin wall approach is an inferior approach to speaker design at this point.

Well I don't think a real engineer would consider aiming at a goal incompatible with physics to be a good thing.

The fact is, there will be resonances excited in the cabinet.

Thicker walls will make them at a higher frequency since stiffness goes up with thickness cubed but mass only with thickness.
The vibration amplitude goes down with frequency going up but it needs to since the radiated sound needs less amplitude as frequency goes up, so this isn't a benefit, and the surface area of the cabinet is vast compared to the driver area.

What good engineering -can- do is appropriately damp the inevitable resonances.

I haven't done the calculations but what KEF and Q-Acoustics have published in their technical explanations is a modern approach to that being used in the BBC damped wall with bolted junction approach.
It is likely that any metallic enclosure will need damping. Using the gasket and the fixing bolt torque would be the obvious solution to at least some of the modes. (that is what my speakers do)
I am sure there are others doing clever engineering to damp resonance to, hopefully, inaudible levels as well.

There are plenty using brute force and profound ignorance though.

The BBC approach is indeed old, and expensive to manufacture, but your opinion that it is an inferior approach is not supported by any of the engineering knowledge and experience I have.
Simply stiffening a simple cabinet is cheap but not clever, or sound engineering from a cabinet radiation pov.

I haven't done the calculation but maybe somebody else here has, is the overblown bass of the larger BBC type speakers due to panel resonance or is it the bass alignment?

 

[Mnyb]

God pionts the KH310 is smal thus small radiating cabinet area and facing forward is mostly drivers and waveguides.

Can small speakers get away with it by just being a small mdf box ? The design willl not fail spectacularly if you somewhat skipped on the mechanical part . But a very large cab with a lot of area facing forward will have problem.

Facing forward area ? I’m assuming sound from the front will arrive at the same time as sound from the drivers and thus be very audible while sound from a sidewall or back will bounce about the room and arrive later and our brains can do thier magic and filter out some of this ?

 

[richard12511]

Well I don't think a real engineer would consider aiming at a goal incompatible with physics to be a good thing.

As an engineer myself(I know you are too), this seems illogical to me. Perfection is impossible with pretty much any engineering goal ever, but that doesn't mean aiming for it is a bad thing. Perhaps I don't understand your point?

It's impossible to design a speaker that's perfectly flat from 20-20,000Hz, with zero % distortion at every frequency, but that doesn't mean shooting for that goal is a bad thing. Surely you would agree with that?

I think it's important to note that resonances don't need to be completely eliminated, they just need to be controlled in a manner which makes them least offensive.

There are plenty using brute force and profound ignorance though.

I agree with this, and I think it's a big reason why the BBC advice had merit back in the day(and still does to this day). I agree that a well made BBC design will have "better" resonance control than a poor design from another school of research.

The BBC approach is indeed old, and expensive to manufacture, but your opinion that it is an inferior approach is not supported by any of the engineering knowledge and experience I have.

Can't really disagree with this, as I don't have your experience, but I do think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the BBC approach to cabinet design is no longer the best approach out there. I'm not saying it's a bad approach, I'm just saying that it's likely no longer the "best" approach.

IMO, the proof is somewhat in the pudding, or measurements. It seems to me that all - or almost al -l of the speakers that measure the best are not using the BBC approach. I'm not aware of any thin wall BBC type speakers that measure as well as Genelec, Neumann, ME Geithain, D&D, etc. Are you? Even if one or two does exists, it certainly seems like the majority of the world's best manufacturers are opting for a thicker and/or more well braced cabinets. Would you disagree with that?

Certainly you could argue that the better measurements of those other speakers are due to other advantages outside of the cabinet resonance control method, and that could be true. You might argue that if Genelec were using the BBC approach, their monitors might measure even better, but that just doesn't seem likely to me from a common sense perspective. It seems to me that if the BBC approach to resonance control were truly SOTA, like you seem to be suggesting, then that's the approach the majority of the SOTA speaker manufacturers would be using.

Again, not saying it's a bad approach, or worse than just throwing extra weight and bracing in a cabinet without solid engineering to back it up. I'm just saying that, IMO, it's no longer the SOTA approach.

There are other UK approaches to cabinet resonance control that I believe are closer to being SOTA. B&W and Vivid are good examples.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Perhaps I don't understand your point?

Just that seeking no resonance is pointless since it can't exist in the real world.
I think several makers have a modern approach to making a damped speaker cabinet tuned to be inconspicuous.

The only thing I really take issue with is the idea the BBC method is way out of date, it is probably still better than a huge number of others, though a similar approach using modern FEA will be better, and a simple rectangular box with tweeter on the front is hardly the best approach for directivity.

In summary, I think this cabinet approach is not the best any more but better than a lot of the others. I think the Harbeth main driver is one of the best but the tweeter installation is lacking.
IMHO

 

[Purité Audio]

As an engineer myself(I know you are too), this seems illogical to me. Perfection is impossible with pretty much any engineering goal ever, but that doesn't mean aiming for it is a bad thing. Perhaps I don't understand your point?

It's impossible to design a speaker that's perfectly flat from 20-20,000Hz, with zero % distortion at every frequency, but that doesn't mean shooting for that goal is a bad thing. Surely you would agree with that?

I think it's important to note that resonances don't need to be completely eliminated, they just need to be controlled in a manner which makes them least offensive.



I agree with this, and I think it's a big reason why the BBC advice had merit back in the day(and still does to this day). I agree that a well made BBC design will have "better" resonance control than a poor design from another school of research.



Can't really disagree with this, as I don't have your experience, but I do think there is at least some evidence to suggest that the BBC approach to cabinet design is no longer the best approach out there. I'm not saying it's a bad approach, I'm just saying that it's likely no longer the "best" approach.

IMO, the proof is somewhat in the pudding, or measurements. It seems to me that all - or almost al -l of the speakers that measure the best are not using the BBC approach. I'm not aware of any thin wall BBC type speakers that measure as well as Genelec, Neumann, ME Geithain, D&D, etc. Are you? Even if one or two does exists, it certainly seems like the majority of the world's best manufacturers are opting for a thicker and/or more well braced cabinets. Would you disagree with that?

Certainly you could argue that the better measurements of those other speakers are due to other advantages outside of the cabinet resonance control method, and that could be true. You might argue that if Genelec were using the BBC approach, their monitors might measure even better, but that just doesn't seem likely to me from a common sense perspective. It seems to me that if the BBC approach to resonance control were truly SOTA, like you seem to be suggesting, then that's the approach the majority of the SOTA speaker manufacturers would be using.

Again, not saying it's a bad approach, or worse than just throwing extra weight and bracing in a cabinet without solid engineering to back it up. I'm just saying that, IMO, it's no longer the SOTA approach.

There are other UK approaches to cabinet resonance control that I believe are closer to being SOTA. B&W and Vivid are good examples.

Yet the Vivid ‘Kaya’ I tried here was extremely coloured , shouting down a well coloured.
Keith

 

[LTig]

I wouldn't, the 8350A is a better match in capabilities. Both have been extensively measured by S&R:
https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/studiomonitore-im-test-genelec-8350a/
https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/studiomonitor-neumann-kh-310-im-test/
The KH310 has less distorsion (especially IMD) in the mids and play a few Hz lower (even more if you consider the slow sealed rolloff), but the 8350 can play a little louder in the deep bass range (courtesy of the port). Dispersion is a bit smoother in the Genelec, due to the "normal" layout. No massive difference, to be honest, and they're priced exactly the same in Europe. Personally, I'd let GLM and the looks decide for or against.

I agree mostly, but I would always prefer a 3-way over a 2-way due to lower IMD in the mids where the ear is most sensitive.

 

[andreasmaaan]

It is likely that any metallic enclosure will need damping. Using the gasket and the fixing bolt torque would be the obvious solution to at least some of the modes. (that is what my speakers do)

Frank, would be interested to hear you explain this in a bit more detail if you wouldn't mind?

 

[F1308]

After some more search I recommend you have a look and a listening : KRK ROKIT G4 .

https://www.krkmusic.com/Studio-Monitors/ROKIT-10-3-G4

 

[ichonderoga]

After some more search I recommend you have a look and a listening : KRK ROKIT G4 .

https://www.krkmusic.com/Studio-Monitors/ROKIT-10-3-G4

Thanks, they seem very interesting and a lot of value. I'm thinking the KRK Rokit RP10-3 G4s. Cool features Class-D, DSP, pseudo App calibration, display and last but not least rotatable tweeter/mid (gimmicky but I like it) cool cool. The yellow kevlar membranes remind me of my old B&W 601s.

- Measurements (and reviews) would also be nice - Have you found any good ones?
- I've got 2,5m (7,5ft) to my listening position, are the ROKIT 10-3 G4 too big or adequate for this?

 

[F1308]

Thanks, they seem very interesting and a lot of value. I'm thinking the KRK Rokit RP10-3 G4s. Cool features Class-D, DSP, pseudo App calibration, display and last but not least rotatable tweeter/mid (gimmicky but I like it) cool cool. The yellow kevlar membranes remind me of my old B&W 601s.

- Measurements (and reviews) would also be nice - Have you found any good ones?
- I've got 2,5m (7,5ft) to my listening position, are the ROKIT 10-3 G4 too big or adequate for this?

No, I haven't. It seems they are a very new entry,
But I saw some videos comparing Neumann and KRK and KRK suddenly became a favourite at a third of the price.
Hope that yellowish looks have nothing to do with B&W sound, as all models I heard from them was considered frankly OBSCURE to my liking.
Comparing to Adam, this have a slightly plastic sound added to every instrument....if you pay great attention.
KRK might be a little bit forward, but I liked them most.
As for the distance, and bearing in mind those 300W, simply mind volume level. My settings are monitored often and usually reflect my comfort listening takes place in the 60dB arena, with the variations obviously imposed by the performance. I usually say you should hear a trumpet at the natural volume trumpets have, nobody placing it a couple of centimetres from their ears. Hearing is a treasure to take care of I you want to keep owning it.

 

[thewas]

Thanks, they seem very interesting and a lot of value. I'm thinking the KRK Rokit RP10-3 G4s. Cool features Class-D, DSP, pseudo App calibration, display and last but not least rotatable tweeter/mid (gimmicky but I like it) cool cool. The yellow kevlar membranes remind me of my old B&W 601s.
- Measurements (and reviews) would also be nice - Have you found any good ones?

The previous third generation G3 had been measured in detail by the Sound & Recording magazine, they were ok but also showed its limited budget:
https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/studiomonitor-krk-rp-10−3-im-test/

 

[ichonderoga]

No, I haven't. It seems they are a very new entry,
But I saw some videos comparing Neumann and KRK and KRK suddenly became a favourite at a third of the price.
Hope that yellowish looks have nothing to do with B&W sound, as all models I heard from them was considered frankly OBSCURE to my liking.
Comparing to Adam, this have a slightly plastic sound added to every instrument....if you pay great attention.
KRK might be a little bit forward, but I liked them most.
As for the distance, and bearing in mind those 300W, simply mind volume level. My settings are monitored often and usually reflect my comfort listening takes place in the 60dB arena, with the variations obviously imposed by the performance. I usually say you should hear a trumpet at the natural volume trumpets have, nobody placing it a couple of centimetres from their ears. Hearing is a treasure to take care of I you want to keep owning it.

reg. B&W - It's the better part of ~25 yrs ago and I choose them over a pair DALI. And they're long gone now (sold).

 

[ichonderoga]

The previous third generation G3 had been measured in detail by the Sound & Recording magazine, they were ok but also showed its limited budget:
https://www.soundandrecording.de/equipment/studiomonitor-krk-rp-10−3-im-test/

Thx. Favorable review indeed especially considering the price!

 

[Frank Dernie]

Frank, would be interested to hear you explain this in a bit more detail if you wouldn't mind?

A thin walled metal cabinet section will ring like a bell, obviously.
Junctions can be made lossy by adding a gasket of a damping material, most will be to an extent, and bolts done up to a torque giving some friction damping.
I learned about this on record player pickup arms and it is what lead me to the belief that the much vaunted in the past PRaT improved by tightening every bolt in the arm and speaker drivers showed that it was adding longer ringing to any excited resonances that actually added "PRaT" rather than revealing it.
Several manufacturers who know a bit about dynamics recommended appropriate bolt tightening as a way of damping ringing.

As a cabinet material metal is stiffer than the more traditional materials but has almost zero internal damping so some clever engineering is required to make it a good solution.

 

[andreasmaaan]

A thin walled metal cabinet section will ring like a bell, obviously.
Junctions can be made lossy by adding a gasket of a damping material, most will be to an extent, and bolts done up to a torque giving some friction damping.
I learned about this on record player pickup arms and it is what lead me to the belief that the much vaunted in the past PRaT improved by tightening every bolt in the arm and speaker drivers showed that it was adding longer ringing to any excited resonances that actually added "PRaT" rather than revealing it.
Several manufacturers who know a bit about dynamics recommended appropriate bolt tightening as a way of damping ringing.

As a cabinet material metal is stiffer than the more traditional materials but has almost zero internal damping so some clever engineering is required to make it a good solution.

Great explanation, thanks

 

[Shorty]

Before making a decision, it would be wise to keep in mind KRK only barely survived the bankruptcy of its mother company (Gibson, which amassed debts of 500 million US dollars ). What is left of Gibson is now led by a former president of Levi Strauss . The new Gibson company will focus on its core business, musical instruments. So the future of KRK is uncertain...

 

[ichonderoga]

Before making a decision, it would be wise to keep in mind KRK only barely survived the bankruptcy of its mother company (Gibson, which amassed debts of 500 million US dollars ). What is left of Gibson is now led by a former president of Levi Strauss . The new Gibson company will focus on its core business, musical instruments. So the future of KRK is uncertain...

Good to know. My gut still tells me KH310s.

 

[q3cpma]

Good to know. My gut still tells me KH310s.

Your gut is right, KRK isn't especially known for its quality and reliability.