Genelec 8341A vs Neumann KH80DSP vs KH310A, Impressions and In-Room Measurements

[Χ Ξ Σ]

My favorite things for judging dispersion width are:

1. The horizontal off axis curves that @MZKM posts for each review
2. The beamwidth graphs that Amir and Erin post with their reviews. I like both the regular and normalized versions(for different reason).
3. The early reflections directivity index at the bottom of the spinorama(blue dashed line). This (unfortunately) lumps vertical and horizontal dispersion into one. I've seen @napilopez include a "horizontal early reflections directivity index" as a separate line, which I found super helpful.

The first one is (imo) the best for comparing really small differences. I'll take two graphs and put them side by side to see which is wider. Wider dispersion is indicated by the off axis curves being closer in level to the on axis curve. A good example is below, with speakers with very different dispersion widths (JTR 212RT and Revel M105). Notice how much smaller in area the Revel set of curves is, which indicates a much wider dispersion pattern. View attachment 127821

One thing I'm still not sure of, is which frequency ranges I should be focusing on the most. Usually I'm looking at like 2-8kHz, but I don't really have a good reason for that.

Thanks, this is very helpful!

 

[napilopez]

Honestly I don't really know how to read dispersion information from the measurements. Do I just look at the contour plot and see if the beamwidth is wide or not?

My favorite things for judging dispersion width are:

1. The horizontal off axis curves that @MZKM posts for each review
2. The beamwidth graphs that Amir and Erin post with their reviews. I like both the regular and normalized versions(for different reason).
3. The early reflections directivity index at the bottom of the spinorama(blue dashed line). This (unfortunately) lumps vertical and horizontal dispersion into one. I've seen @napilopez include a "horizontal early reflections directivity index" as a separate line, which I found super helpful.

The first one is (imo) the best for comparing really small differences. I'll take two graphs and put them side by side to see which is wider. Wider dispersion is indicated by the off axis curves being closer in level to the on axis curve. A good example is below, with speakers with very different dispersion widths (JTR 212RT and Revel M105). Notice how much smaller in area the Revel set of curves is, which indicates a much wider dispersion pattern. View attachment 127821

One thing I'm still not sure of, is which frequency ranges I should be focusing on the most. Usually I'm looking at like 2-8kHz, but I don't really have a good reason for that.

Personally I think horizontal off-axis SPL curves are the most useful single graph for judging horizontal dispersion, like the images above, because you can literally count by the dB how much the response changes as you go off-axis. Normalized SPL plots makes it more obvious when focusing only on dispersion, but then you lose the context of things like on-axis diffraction which is unlikely to be audible. I wish software gave an option to normalize to a listening window; that might be more useful.

I also look at roughly 2-8kHz the most, although I've found wide directivity extension to 10kHz preferential (as with Focal speakers). I've often shared this image from Toole's book (chapter 6.3):

"Figure 6.3 is an attempt to summarize the perceptual effects that are experienced when loudspeakers energize a room. The direction and space effects are estimates based on comments in the literature, mostly pertaining to large venues, but the wave-acoustic effects at the bottom are well documented. All will depend to some extent on the specific characteristics of loudspeakers, rooms and program."

"Image shift, image/source broadening" is what we generally think of when we describe a speaker's soundstage size/width. It's not quite 2-8kHz, perhaps more 1-7kHz, but close enough.

Toole says of this region:

"Strong reflections have the ability to slightly shift the apparent position of a source in the direction of the reflection and/ or to make the source appear larger. In live classical performances this is called ASW (apparent source width), and audiences like it. In sound reproduction there is evidence that the tendency continues. Small positional shifts are innocuous because nobody knows what the intended location really was. Image broadening is what happens in live performances— the “air” around the instruments and voices. It gives an acoustical setting for the sound, rather than having it float as an abstract pinpoint in space— although it seems that some listeners like that enhanced effect."

Envelopment, meanwhile, is more the quality of being in a specific space (as opposed to the where the instruments are localized in that specific space) which in this thread I theorized might have something to do with helping big speakers sound 'big.' That part is completely my own theory though.

 

[thewas]

I also look at roughly 2-8kHz the most, although I've found wide directivity extension to 10kHz preferential (as with Focal speakers). I've often shared this image from Toole's book (chapter 6.3):

"Figure 6.3 is an attempt to summarize the perceptual effects that are experienced when loudspeakers energize a room. The direction and space effects are estimates based on comments in the literature, mostly pertaining to large venues, but the wave-acoustic effects at the bottom are well documented. All will depend to some extent on the specific characteristics of loudspeakers, rooms and program."

"Image shift, image/source broadening" is what we generally think of when we describe a speaker's soundstage size/width. It's not quite 2-8kHz, perhaps more 1-7kHz, but close enough.

Interesting also that according to above graph the region responsible for envelopement is around 150-600 Hz, which could be the reason why wide baffle loudspeakers which have their baffle step earlier in this region sound different to the nowadays more common narrow baffle designs.

 

[napilopez]

Interesting also that according to above graph the region responsible for envelopement is around 150-600 Hz, which could be the reason why wide baffle loudspeakers which have their baffle step earlier in this region sound different to the nowadays more common narrow baffle designs.

Not sure if you missed my last part of that post =]

"Envelopment, meanwhile, is more the quality of being in a specific space (as opposed to the where the instruments are localized in that specific space) which in this thread I theorized might have something to do with helping big speakers sound 'big.' That part is completely my own theory though. "

I agree with you though what you suggest is what I theorized in the above thread link. This has been my experience, and it was also perhaps one reason why the D&D 8C, which is not so wide, sounds bigger than it is. The cardioid effect is somewhat similar to having the lower baffle step.

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Replaced the JBL LSR310S with a pair of SVS SB4000. Finally filling the full range. Yeah baby!

 

[Sparky]

Replaced the JBL LSR310S with a pair of SVS SB4000. Finally filling the full range. Yeah baby!
View attachment 132144

What listening distance are we talking here?

 

[Sparky]

Replaced the JBL LSR310S with a pair of SVS SB4000. Finally filling the full range. Yeah baby!
View attachment 132144

Sorry. I missed it in your first post. How's the headroom? Much more in the tank for increased listening distance? Say, 3 metres?

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

Sorry. I missed it in your first post. How's the headroom? Much more in the tank for increased listening distance? Say, 3 metres?

More headroom for sure. Although the LSR310S has more than enough headroom in a small room, too.

 

[Sparky]

More headroom for sure. Although the LSR310S has more than enough headroom in a small room, too.

That's good to hear! I receive my 8341's tomorrow and I can't wait.

It'll probably be over the weekend that I get chance to play around with them though.

 

[Pearljam5000]

That's good to hear! I receive my 8341's tomorrow and I can't wait.

It'll probably be over the weekend that I get chance to play around with them though.

How are you liking them so far?

 

[c1ferrari]

In the last six months, I swapped four pairs of studio monitors in my study room: the Neumann KH120A, KH310A, KH80DSP, and finally the Genelec 8341A. I wanted to share some of my listening impressions and in-room measurements with those who might be interested in getting one of these speakers. All measurements and listening were done when the speakers were paired with two JBL LSR310S subwoofers and crossed at 80Hz. Dirac Live Processor was used to correct the frequency response to the same target. I used white noise and MMM to conduct these measurements. My listening distance was 1.3 meters give or take. The speakers were placed close to the front wall window, behind a 1.5m*0.6m desk.

Previously I posted a blind test attempt between the KH310 and KH120. To recap, I found that the KH120 had a strange shrillness in the midrange, and KH310’s midrange was a lot smoother. However, after putting four different speakers on the same spots, I am inclined to say that the shrillness is more of a desk/window/room issue rather than a speaker issue. KH310 was not exempted from said shrillness when I listened to them on a daily basis. This made me realize that in a quick-switching, side-by-side comparison, an untrained listener like me could focus too much on the most obvious and dominating distinction while omitting everything else. When compared with the KH120, the KH310's smooth and pleasing upper-bass prevailed so easily. I must admit I was only looking for the upper-bass difference during the comparison and not paying attention to other aspects. It was not until I put the KH120 away and only listened to KH310 that I started hearing the shrillness again, and I was quite surprised and disappointed. However, the shrillness with KH310 was much more forgivable because of KH310’s pleasing upper-bass presentation. That being said, I still do not know what exactly caused that midrange shrillness for all Neumann speakers in my room. At least I do not know where to find them on the measurements.

Long-time viewers on ASR know that the KH80 has one of the best CEA2034 results. According to the measurements, KH80 measures better than the KH310 on every single aspect except for the size-related bass extension, which on paper can be easily improved by adding a subwoofer. The KH80 has a w/sub score of 8.4 while the KH310’s w/sub score was merely 7.6. So, theoretically, KH80+LSR310S should sound better than KH310+LSR310S, right?

View attachment 127692

Raw measurements were done when Dirac was deactivated. Look at the treble. They definitely use the same tweeter. The placements of these speakers and subwoofers were very close but not exactly the same due to the size difference, so the bass and lower-mid were not exactly the same either. However, when corrected by Dirac, both measured quite similarly.

View attachment 127693

The left KH80 overlays with the left KH310, the right channel with the right. Other than the slight shift in sub-bass nulls due to the subwoofers’ optimized placement, the responses of main speakers track each other pretty well. The KH310 seems to have bigger up-and-downs from 200Hz to 600Hz.

The listening impressions were quite interesting. Though the corrected frequency responses have the same slope, I just didn’t feel that the KH80+subs produced the same bass impact as the KH310+subs did. Since the sub-bass below 80Hz was produced by the same pairs of subwoofers, the difference had to come from the upper-bass, around 80Hz to 250Hz. KH310’s upper-bass was bigger, deeper, in-your-face, and for lack of a better term, “musical”. KH80’s upper-bass did not have the same level of impact or spatial size. It even felt bass-deficient at the beginning. It sounded like listening to a pair of good-tunning headphones, I could hear the bass frequency, but I did not feel much physical impact, yet once I got used to it, I did not think there was anything particularly wrong with this impact-less bass presentation. Much like most people can easily adjust to listening to headphones’ bass without feeling weird about it.

View attachment 127694

Eventually I dialed the subwoofers’ volume up a bit, creating a bass shelf in the sub-bass region to compensate for the lack of upper-bass impact, and that actually worked pretty well. Still, the impact was no match, but with the elevated sub-bass, I no longer felt that the KH80+subs lacked in bass as a whole. Seems like increasing the bass volume can effectively make up for the lack of bass quality. No wonder cheap gears often have a bass boost.

View attachment 127695

The KH310 reacted to Dirac drastically. Most of the time I used full-range correction. I also stored filters that limit Dirac’s correction below 1kHz, 500Hz, 300Hz, and 200Hz. When uncorrected or when the correction was limited 200Hz, the KH310 sounded really big, but the image was basically spilled all over the desk. It could hardly be called an "image". As the correction increased its coverage, the image became smaller and tighter, and I started seeing an image floating above the desk.

View attachment 127696

The KH80, on the other hand, always presented a somewhat clear image elevated above the desk even when uncorrected. The KH80 never spilled the image all over the desk the same way the uncorrected KH310 did. With the increase of correction coverage, the size of the image also tightened a little bit, and the image started to have a clearer boundary. In other words, Dirac did not improve the KH80+subs as much as it did to the KH310+subs because the KH80+subs were more listenable in the first place.

To clarify what I mean, here is my ranking in terms of image:
Uncorrected: KH80+subs > > > KH310+subs
Partially corrected: KH80+subs >= KH310+subs
Full-range: KH310+subs > KH80+subs (mainly the bass)

Back to the question, Did the KH80+subs sound better than the KH310+subs? In my opinion, when both were uncorrected, the KH80+subs did sound better. The $4400 (now $4590) KH310 needed an additional DRC to sound as good as the $998 KH80. When both were corrected, they sounded very similar except for the KH310 still held an edge in the upper-bass department. To make the upper-bass from the KH80 system sounded as impactful as the KH310 system, one probably needs a W371 type of standing subwoofer with directivity control and cross it with the KH80 at above 250Hz. Pretty sure this was not what we usually mean by “just adding a sub or two”.

The Neumann speakers already sounded too bright out of the box, yet the 8341 was even brighter. For the KH120 and the KH310, I had to use Dirac to bring the treble down because setting the treble level to -2 was not enough, and the KH80 does not even have a toggle for adjusting the treble. The 8341 has a toggle that dials the treble down to -4, which works wonderfully for me. I no longer needed to do full-range correction; rather, I limited Dirac to below 1kHz and letting the toggle tiling down the rest. The midrange shrillness that I heard from the Neumann speakers was not completely eliminated but largely mitigated. I suppose the coaxial layout was more room-friendly. However, I have not had the 8341 long enough to definitively say that I would never find the 8341 shrill in the further. I just hope the shrillness stays absent and never comes back.

View attachment 127704
The 8341 needed the least amount of room correction. The difference between the raw and corrected response mainly resided in the bass region.

View attachment 127699
The image was a little bigger than what I have been accustomed to, and it did not change much as Dirac increased its coverage.

View attachment 127700

From everything I read about the 8341, I excepted it to have better treble, better midrange, but I did not expect the bass was also better than the 8.25” KH310. I was surprised with the transient quality in the 8341’s upper-bass. I thought the KH310’s upper-bass was impactful and had a full “body”, but I did not feel it had better transient than the KH120 or the KH80 per se. By that I mean the words “cleaner” and “faster” did not come to mind, but with the 8341 they did. The upper-bass from the 8341 was so punchy and decayed so quickly, it honestly made some music tracks sound a little dry and dead, and some others too bass-heavy. I fiddled with the target curve design in Dirac and ended up with less bass boost than I had with the KH310+subs for most music. I am still switching and deciding between the bass-flat target and the bass-boost target (the same one for the KH310+subs) for some music. This target change was also consistent with me adding more bass boost with the KH80+subs because they had the worst upper-bass. The better the bass quality, the less the bass boost I need.

Subjective Verdicts

The KH80 is the best pound-for-pound speaker in terms of accuracy. Whether or not you like the sound in your specific environment is another story. A lot of people hold an arbitrary notion that 5” is the minimum acceptable woofer size and never look at this 4” wonder from Neumann. Why? Chances are the smaller speakers might even interact with your room better than the bigger speakers do. Also, you do not need a subwoofer to appreciate the KH80. If your brain can adjust to headphones that start rolling off from 100Hz, it can adjust to the KH80, too.

The KH310 is more enjoyable thanks to its bass output. However, in the nearfield, the 8” woofer will spill the image all over the desk. Maybe some would like the “big sound”, but I like my image elevated above the desk.

The 8341 mitigates my room-related problem (for now) that other speakers and room correction could not address. I can also hear the bass clearly even with less bass boost added. The cabinet, however, feels quite rough. At its price point, I expected it to feel as nice as the KH120’s cast aluminum does, but no, Genelec likes it rough.

The CEA2034 data were incredibly useful for choosing speakers. It however does not show how the transient performance will be, or maybe it does, and I just do not know enough to find it on the graph.

I think I am done with upgrading the main speakers for now. Time to look at subwoofers…

Hi,

Effusive thanks for having initiated this thread. The Genelec 8351B, notwithstanding, these speakers are what I am presently considering for my monitoring needs.

Best,
Sam

 

[flyingbynight]

Hi,

Effusive thanks for having initiated this thread. The Genelec 8351B, notwithstanding, these speakers are what I am presently considering for my monitoring needs.

Best,
Sam

What did you end up purchasing?

 

[Sparky]

How are you liking them so far?

Sorry I didn't get a notification on this reply.

The 8341's are truly phenomenal! I love them (although the wife hates them in white as we used to have a lovely set of passive Spendor A7's in Walnut).
I'm a big fan of detail in music and these 8341's deliver in spades. I have them running with a pair of sealed 12' subs via a minidsp SHD crossed over at around 90hz.
I am getting true "full range" down to 18hz but I'm getting a ground loop through the subs as they only have an unbalanced input
but that's another subject altogether.

All those who have said they're no good for far-field are definitely incorrect as they've no problems at all at a 3 metre listening distance.

Should've gone "active" years ago!

 

[fineMen]

The CEA2034 data were incredibly useful for choosing speakers. It however does not show how the transient performance

How do You think about the obvious deviations from the predicted in-room response?

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

How do You think about the obvious deviations from the predicted in-room response?

Real rooms have room modes.

 

[fineMen]

Real rooms have room modes.

sure, I was referring to the step in the midrange (5dB) and exaggerated top end

 

[Χ Ξ Σ]

My 8341 also measures a dip around here. Just something with my room. (This is a single point sweep, not MMM.)

I am not sure about the top end. It might just be due to round-to-round error during MMM or how I maneuver the microphone that day. I have some older MMM results that shows the same slight bump after 10kHz but only 1dB.

 

[fineMen]

My 8341 also measures a dip around here. Just something with my room. (This is a single point sweep, not MMM.)
View attachment 187333


I am not sure about the top end. It might just be due to ...

Thanks a lot for the clarification. Every room, and positioning is special, as You confirmed. So, the PIR should not be taken as a given for everyone everywhere. Equalization needs a measuremnt of the actual situation.

As a sidenote, the bass may be contaminated by noises from the environment. I struggled with traffic noises, even wind noises in-room many times.

 

[kozi07]

What do you think about Kh310 midrange? I heard it's very special because of its midrange dome woofer