• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Genelec 8330+7350 or Neumann KH 120 II+KH750 for casual music enjoyment

Which set would you recommend?

  • Genelec 8330 + 7350

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • Neumann KH 80 + KH 750

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Neumann KH 120 II + KH 750

    Votes: 17 60.7%

  • Total voters
    28
The answer is most of the time. I have KH150 and medium size bookshelf Speakers that too have a 1"/7" driver Combo. You can tell the difference on the bass on almost every track (that has at least some bass) and the passive Bookshelf Speaker sounds better. That's not only by the slightly deeper extension but by the much less steep rolloff of the passive speaker over the KH150.
Most of these active speakers have highpass for low frequency below the tuning frequency which prevents the Woofer from overexcursion where it is not offloaded by the port. But this behavior also means some low end is given up.
So you can enjoy music without the 30 to 40 Hz content but it sounds different. A typical "solution" is to turn up the upper bass but it's not the same.
It sounds better because you do not enjoy flat frequency response. The KH150 has a flat frequency curve with nothing exaggerated. That is why it is such an excellent studio monitor.
 
It sounds better because you do not enjoy flat frequency response. The KH150 has a flat frequency curve with nothing exaggerated. That is why it is such an excellent studio monitor.
That's Simply wrong - I enjoy proper sounding Speakers. The on axis frequency response of the KH150 is as flat as it can be. The in room Response however is NOT as directivity of the Waveguide is too narrow and the lower mids are radiated considerably wider resulting in exaggerated lower mids and darker presentation. That's not a deal if sitting close and direct sound dominates. What is correct is that this with many other things (like imaging and very good details) makes it a great nearfield studio monitor. Put it in a normal reflective room together with other good speakers and you hear it's benefits but also flaws.
Besides the KH120ii seems to actually do better in terms of neutral in room response then the KH150.

But Bass extention is still a different topic then directivity and Tonality.
 
Last edited:
That's Simply wrong - I enjoy proper sounding Speakers. The on axis frequency response of the KH150 is as flat as it can be. The in room Response however is NOT as directivity of the Waveguide is too narrow and the lower mids are radiated considerably wider resulting in exaggerated lower mids and darker presentation. That's not a deal if sitting close and direct sound dominates. What is correct is that this with many other things (like imaging and very good details) makes it a great nearfield studio monitor. Put it in a normal reflective room together with other good speakers and you hear it's benefits but also flaws.
Besides the KH120ii seems to actually do better in terms of neutral in room response then the KH150.

But Bass extention is still a different topic then directivity and Tonality.
The KH150's are designed as nearfield monitors and not as farfield speakers
 
I am currently testing Genelecs 8330 vs Neumann KH 120 II but due to the fact that I have limited space on my desk, I had to decide on some compromise for the tests in order to be able to compare them by switching from one to the other.

Therefore, I set them up in such a way that I placed the Neumanns on hundred-page magazines to separate them from the desk top (initially I wanted to use thicker books, but in such a case finding 2 of identical thickness would be quite difficult, so I decided to use magazines - I know that it is far from ideal and dedicated stands, but maybe for the needs of amateur tests it is enough (?)). And then I placed Genelecs on Neumanns.

I performed the GLM and MA1 calibration - due to the fact that my room is untreated, the difference "before" and "after" calibration is as clear as day and night. Both sound very good, I remember that I came across opinions on the forum that they sound quite similar, but to my ear they sound definitely different!

I would like to ask you if such a "test setting" can significantly work to the disadvantage of Neumanns? I mean that because something is placed on them they play worse (?). I admit that I have the impression that even after calibration it is as if the low tones dominated a bit over the rest on Neumanns (compared to Genelecs) and speech from YouTube videos sounds definitely clearer on Genelecs - and this despite the fact that Genelecs are definitely above my ear level. Of course, it is not that Neumanns sound bad or that speech is incomprehensible, but simply that the difference compared to Genelecs is quite noticeable. It is possible that if I did not have the possibility to change the sound from one to the other, I would not pay attention to it at all. What do you think?


2on2.jpg
 
I am currently testing Genelecs 8330 vs Neumann KH 120 II but due to the fact that I have limited space on my desk, I had to decide on some compromise for the tests in order to be able to compare them by switching from one to the other.

Therefore, I set them up in such a way that I placed the Neumanns on hundred-page magazines to separate them from the desk top (initially I wanted to use thicker books, but in such a case finding 2 of identical thickness would be quite difficult, so I decided to use magazines - I know that it is far from ideal and dedicated stands, but maybe for the needs of amateur tests it is enough (?)). And then I placed Genelecs on Neumanns.

I performed the GLM and MA1 calibration - due to the fact that my room is untreated, the difference "before" and "after" calibration is as clear as day and night. Both sound very good, I remember that I came across opinions on the forum that they sound quite similar, but to my ear they sound definitely different!

I would like to ask you if such a "test setting" can significantly work to the disadvantage of Neumanns? I mean that because something is placed on them they play worse (?). I admit that I have the impression that even after calibration it is as if the low tones dominated a bit over the rest on Neumanns (compared to Genelecs) and speech from YouTube videos sounds definitely clearer on Genelecs - and this despite the fact that Genelecs are definitely above my ear level. Of course, it is not that Neumanns sound bad or that speech is incomprehensible, but simply that the difference compared to Genelecs is quite noticeable. It is possible that if I did not have the possibility to change the sound from one to the other, I would not pay attention to it at all. What do you think?


View attachment 415437

That is a huge disadvantage for the Neumanns. Not only because of the reflections from the desk, but above all because the speakers only work well precisely at ear level (Genelecs too).

At short distances, you can only make comparisons when the speakers are in the ideal position. Of course, a quick A->B comparison is not possible.

I would recommend this:
- Listen to one set at a time for a longer period of time and see what your impression is.
- Then do the same with the other set.
- Both at an ideal position and calibrated with GLM/MA1.

It would be very helpful for everyone if you could also use Room EQ Wizard to take measurements before and after calibration with MA1 and GLM from the listening position. Then we could also see how the programs work in each case.
It's hard to believe, but nobody has ever made such a comparison before and the question of whether MA1 or GLM works better keeps coming up.
 
Place both on the desk side by side (so that like genelec is always left of Neumann but on the same level. Also take care that Neumann and Genelec Measurement systems have different default targets and a different take on correction. Neumann Ma1 targets more bass then GLM5 for example.
And of course the Genelec too will get a upper bass boost from the close desk the closer they are (though GLM should filter that).
 
I always compare by level matching and switching quickly. Iirc our memory for these kind of tests is at maximum 8 seconds. Personally I demo pairs of speakers, but as far as I understand from ASR comparing single speakers is easier. Both should be at ear level of course.
 
Place both on the desk side by side (so that like genelec is always left of Neumann but on the same level. Also take care that Neumann and Genelec Measurement systems have different default targets and a different take on correction. Neumann Ma1 targets more bass then GLM5 for example.
And of course the Genelec too will get a upper bass boost from the close desk the closer they are (though GLM should filter that).
I always compare by level matching and switching quickly. Iirc our memory for these kind of tests is at maximum 8 seconds. Personally I demo pairs of speakers, but as far as I understand from ASR comparing single speakers is easier. Both should be at ear level of course.
Sure, you could do that. But then the speakers are not in an optimal position. In my experience, every centimeter counts, at least in such a close distance and in a small room.
 
That is a huge disadvantage for the Neumanns. Not only because of the reflections from the desk, but above all because the speakers only work well precisely at ear level (Genelecs too).

At short distances, you can only make comparisons when the speakers are in the ideal position. Of course, a quick A->B comparison is not possible.

I would recommend this:
- Listen to one set at a time for a longer period of time and see what your impression is.
- Then do the same with the other set.
- Both at an ideal position and calibrated with GLM/MA1.

It would be very helpful for everyone if you could also use Room EQ Wizard to take measurements before and after calibration with MA1 and GLM from the listening position. Then we could also see how the programs work in each case.
It's hard to believe, but nobody has ever made such a comparison before and the question of whether MA1 or GLM works better keeps coming up.
I set them up a bit more properly but still far from ideal, I also added a Genelec 7350 sub to the tests (with pass set to default 85 Hz) and took some measurements. However, I must admit right away that since I don't have microphone stands yet, I took the GLM and MA1 measurements holding the microphone in my hand (at ear level in the listening position), hence I suspect that the level of accuracy of measurements taken in this way is "not the best" at the moment:

Neumann ma1 (1x pomiar 2x analog).png


Genelec 8330 (left).png
Genelec 8330 (right).png

Genelec 7350 (sub).png


I have conducted quite a few tests of music, movies and speech on YouTube (games are still to be tested) - I am absolutely enchanted by how huge the impact of "automatic" calibration is and how great both Genelecs and Neumanns sound after it, although I must admit that the Genelecs sub's impact seems relatively subtle to me (especially considering how much space the Sub takes up and not to mention the price). However, what surprised me the most is that I have the impression that the Sub improves the quality of human speech on YouTube.
 
However, what surprised me the most is that I have the impression that the Sub improves the quality of human speech on YouTube.
If it's not the overall correction that removes desk reflections, then still little surprise: bass management clears up the midrange by removing a great deal of port noise and muddiness from the lower frequencies. It's the same with my KH 120, after adding the KH 750 DSP and aligning with MA 1 (bringing also phase correction to the old analog design). The vocal rendering and resolution are just divine now.
 
I set them up a bit more properly but still far from ideal, I also added a Genelec 7350 sub to the tests (with pass set to default 85 Hz) and took some measurements. However, I must admit right away that since I don't have microphone stands yet, I took the GLM and MA1 measurements holding the microphone in my hand (at ear level in the listening position), hence I suspect that the level of accuracy of measurements taken in this way is "not the best" at the moment:

View attachment 415782

View attachment 415783View attachment 415784
View attachment 415785

I have conducted quite a few tests of music, movies and speech on YouTube (games are still to be tested) - I am absolutely enchanted by how huge the impact of "automatic" calibration is and how great both Genelecs and Neumanns sound after it, although I must admit that the Genelecs sub's impact seems relatively subtle to me (especially considering how much space the Sub takes up and not to mention the price). However, what surprised me the most is that I have the impression that the Sub improves the quality of human speech on YouTube.
it's very interesting to see what Genelec and Neumann Measurement Systems respectively do to their Speakers. Both tackle the huge lower midrange and upper bass mud that comes from near wall and near Desk placement. Neumann targets a slight bass Boost. Neumann needs to bring the treble up and Genelec needs to bring the treble down to fulfill their target.

I have to add that for your situation my prediction about needing a sub for good bass reproduction was wrong. You get 3x Hz in room from the speakers which is quite good. There are still benefits of using a sub as you noted but the general "bass without too much holes" is there with the main speakers in your position.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that neither of those show the real result after the correction, just the simulated one. Also to really compare the speakers and not the EQ which is done automatically in MA1 and not in GLM, you really have to use Sound Character Profiler in the GLM. As you can see in the orange line MA1 added about +2-2,5dB of low shelf at somewhere around 80-100Hz and about -2dB of high shelf at around 6kHz (hard to tell its Q is so wide). I would also try to do a second profile with a crossover set at 100Hz or even a bit higher, to get rid of that deep 85Hz null in the right speaker. Oh and you can order GRADE report in the GLM to have more info about what's going on in the room.
 
Last edited:
I set them up a bit more properly but still far from ideal, I also added a Genelec 7350 sub to the tests (with pass set to default 85 Hz) and took some measurements. However, I must admit right away that since I don't have microphone stands yet, I took the GLM and MA1 measurements holding the microphone in my hand (at ear level in the listening position), hence I suspect that the level of accuracy of measurements taken in this way is "not the best" at the moment:

View attachment 415782

View attachment 415783View attachment 415784
View attachment 415785

I have conducted quite a few tests of music, movies and speech on YouTube (games are still to be tested) - I am absolutely enchanted by how huge the impact of "automatic" calibration is and how great both Genelecs and Neumanns sound after it, although I must admit that the Genelecs sub's impact seems relatively subtle to me (especially considering how much space the Sub takes up and not to mention the price). However, what surprised me the most is that I have the impression that the Sub improves the quality of human speech on YouTube.
You have a null in the 90Hz region, which is very common in small rooms. The sub probably helps with that.
I had two KH750 in addition to my KH310 because of a similar problem. But i recently sold both subs, exchanged the 310 with 120II and could solve this by finding better positions for me and the speakers.
BTW, i think the "waves" in the treble region of the Neumann indicate a lot of desk or other reflections going on.
As i said, in my experience every centimeter matters and can possibly make more difference than the differences between speakers. I would not make a decision based on suboptimal positioning and measurements without a stand.
But, on the other hand, both Genelec and Neumann are objectively good and you can't do anything wrong here.
 
I set them up a bit more properly but still far from ideal, I also added a Genelec 7350 sub to the tests (with pass set to default 85 Hz) and took some measurements. However, I must admit right away that since I don't have microphone stands yet, I took the GLM and MA1 measurements holding the microphone in my hand (at ear level in the listening position), hence I suspect that the level of accuracy of measurements taken in this way is "not the best" at the moment:

View attachment 415782

View attachment 415783View attachment 415784
View attachment 415785

I have conducted quite a few tests of music, movies and speech on YouTube (games are still to be tested) - I am absolutely enchanted by how huge the impact of "automatic" calibration is and how great both Genelecs and Neumanns sound after it, although I must admit that the Genelecs sub's impact seems relatively subtle to me (especially considering how much space the Sub takes up and not to mention the price). However, what surprised me the most is that I have the impression that the Sub improves the quality of human speech on YouTube.
The positioning of the MA1 microphone is very critical.
 
The positioning of the MA1 microphone is very critical.
I don't think so. The typical calibration consists of various placements of the mic and the higher frequencies are not even individually corrected, only very wideband. The Ma1 is also very angle independent for a measurement Mic compared to others (I mainly use Ma1 for all measurements since I own one).
 
I don't think so. The typical calibration consists of various placements of the mic and the higher frequencies are not even individually corrected, only very wideband. The Ma1 is also very angle independent for a measurement Mic compared to others (I mainly use Ma1 for all measurements since I own one).
Read what Neumann says ---- It is critical
 
KH150s are the darkest Neumanns. They slope down pretty hard in room and they have a small suckout around the crossover. KH120 IIs less so, but it's still present. Despite the deep waveguides present they both present some directivity error around the crossover.

Both of them are considerably darker than either of the 3 way Neumanns - the 310 and 420 have about 0.5dB/Oct less slope on the sound power, which in a typical room is closer to what you might actually perceive vs the on axis response.

The 8330 will present more like the 310 and 420 in terms of sound power slope - i.e., they will sound brighter in room.
 
KH150s are the darkest Neumanns. They slope down pretty hard in room and they have a small suckout around the crossover. KH120 IIs less so, but it's still present. Despite the deep waveguides present they both present some directivity error around the crossover.

Both of them are considerably darker than either of the 3 way Neumanns - the 310 and 420 have about 0.5dB/Oct less slope on the sound power, which in a typical room is closer to what you might actually perceive vs the on axis response.

The 8330 will present more like the 310 and 420 in terms of sound power slope - i.e., they will sound brighter in room.
All of the comments point to the fact that the KH150's and KH120's are designed as nearfield monitors. When used as such, those mentioned characteristics are irrelevant.
 
All of the comments point to the fact that the KH150's and KH120's are designed as nearfield monitors. When used as such, those mentioned characteristics are irrelevant.
No, no they are not. Less important? Sure. Irrelevant? Absolutely not.
 
Back
Top Bottom